On the other hand, if you're in a field where there's an adversarial use of text and the uncomprehended 20% might be used to nullify, contradict or make loopholes in the main body, then relying on ChatGPT is similar to using Tesla Full Self-Driving in a construction zone, near firetrucks, during a snowstorm.
My impression was that hallucination happened when it simply didn't have facts in the first place, had conflicting facts, etc.
I thought summarization was generally fairly reliable, but I'd be happy to know if this is not the case.
The failure foolishly and misleadingly called “hallucination” is only one manifestation of an attribution error. If your summarizer leaves out something very important because it doesn’t understand it the result will be quite misleading.
For your average web text which these days is 90% filler and not important anyway, this is no big deal. This particular lawsuit appears the same. But for anything important, I wouldn’t trust it.
