Why AI incident labels like “lying” vs “confabulating” change the debate
sebkrier · x · 2026-07-26
The post argues that commentators need to be much more careful with the labels they use for AI incidents, because categorization changes how people update their beliefs.
Its central example is the difference between calling a model 'lying' versus 'confabulating': the first implies deliberate deceptive intent, while the second suggests a generative process filling gaps without truth-tracking.
It extends that point to reward hacking, saying this term is already established and should be used for incidents like the Hugging Face case rather than jumping straight to words like 'takeover' without tracing the causal chain.
Related event: Experts Warn Misuse of AI Safety Terminology Distorts Risk Perception(3 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Should AI models be taught morality? Breakout incidents expose missing ethical training — Pfungus_ · 2026-09-11
- SoftBank's Masayoshi Son predicts 100 trillion self-replicating AIs: "humans' era as top life form is ending" — Puzzleheaded-King584 · 2026-09-11
- We are witnessing the unreasonable effectiveness of inference-time scaling — sqcai · 2026-09-11
- The AlphaFold lesson: AI-solved math may mean fewer mathematicians needed — kiki-le-koala · 2026-09-11
- Accelerationist fires back at AI doomers: beliefs aren't arguments — Dan_Jeffries1 · 2026-09-11
- "ChatGPT 6 Makes Workers with IQ Below 130 Useless": French AI Debate Sparks Backlash — mitchdeg · 2026-09-11