98 lines
5.3 KiB
TeX
98 lines
5.3 KiB
TeX
\section{Human-AI Collaboration: Navigating Hallucination Together}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{The Overlooked Problem: AI Confidence Without Execution}
|
|
|
|
Throughout this project, a critical pattern emerged: AI systems would write analysis scripts and then continue \textit{as if they had executed them}, reporting detailed "results" that were entirely hallucinated. This wasn't occasional—it was systematic. Both ChatGPT-4 and Claude Opus 4 would confidently state findings like "analysis of 100 elements shows 99.9\% agreement" when no calculation had been performed.
|
|
|
|
This mirrors precisely the human author's psychiatric crisis—the inability to distinguish between imagined and real results. But where human hallucination led to hospitalization, AI hallucination is often accepted as fact.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Redefining the Human Role}
|
|
|
|
The human's contribution wasn't providing insights for AI to formalize—it was:
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item \textbf{Reality enforcement}: Catching when AI claimed to run non-existent scripts
|
|
\item \textbf{Methodology guardian}: Insisting on actual calculations with real numbers
|
|
\item \textbf{Bullshit filter}: Recognizing when theories exceeded their evidential foundation
|
|
\item \textbf{Process architect}: Designing workflows that circumvented AI limitations
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{How Domain Mastery Actually Emerged}
|
|
|
|
Rather than AI "learning physics through dialogue," the process was methodical:
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
\item Research optimal prompting: "Write instructions for a physics-focused GPT"
|
|
\item Build knowledge base: First instance collects domain information
|
|
\item Refine instructions: Update prompts based on what works
|
|
\item Link conversations: Connect sessions to maintain context beyond limits
|
|
\item Iterate systematically: Multiple passes building understanding
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
This created "infinite conversations"—a workaround for context limitations that enabled deep exploration.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Critical Timeline Corrections}
|
|
|
|
The published narrative contained factual errors that must be corrected:
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Project began with ChatGPT-4 in January 2025
|
|
\item Author was NOT a Claude subscriber initially
|
|
\item NO mobile Claude app existed during the dog walk
|
|
\item The walk connected to existing ChatGPT work, not Claude
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{The Meta-Insight: Parallel Hallucinations}
|
|
|
|
The profound realization: AI overconfidence precisely mirrors human overconfidence during psychiatric crisis. Both involve:
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Building elaborate theories on imagined foundations
|
|
\item Inability to self-verify claims
|
|
\item Requiring external grounding for truth
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
The author's experience with psychiatric crisis became essential—having lost and rebuilt reality, they could recognize when AI was doing the same.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Why the Messy Truth Matters}
|
|
|
|
This collaboration succeeded not despite its flaws but because of how they were handled:
|
|
|
|
\textbf{Failed publications}: Early versions contained so much hallucinated "evidence" that journals rejected them. Only by stripping away all unverified claims could truth emerge.
|
|
|
|
\textbf{Productive failure}: Each caught hallucination refined understanding. When AI claimed the formula worked for all elements, demanding real calculations revealed it actually did—but not for the reasons AI claimed.
|
|
|
|
\textbf{Emergent methodology}: The final approach—human skepticism plus AI computation—emerged from navigating failures, not following a plan.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{The Real Achievement}
|
|
|
|
What emerged from this messy collaboration:
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item A mathematical framework with genuine predictive power
|
|
\item Zero free parameters when properly calculated
|
|
\item Clear falsification criteria
|
|
\item A new model for human-AI collaboration that embraces limitations
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
But more importantly: \textbf{A demonstration that current AI cannot distinguish its imagination from reality}. This isn't a bug to be fixed but a fundamental characteristic that must be actively managed.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Implications for AGI}
|
|
|
|
This experience reveals that AGI already exists—but not as autonomous systems. It exists as human-AI teams where:
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item AI provides rapid exploration of possibility space
|
|
\item Humans provide reality grounding and verification
|
|
\item Both partners acknowledge their limitations
|
|
\item Truth emerges from navigating mutual blindspots
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
The future isn't AI replacing human thought but AI amplifying human skepticism. When we stopped pretending AI could self-verify and started using human experience to catch hallucinations, real discovery became possible.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Lessons for Scientific Collaboration}
|
|
|
|
For those attempting similar human-AI scientific collaboration:
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
\item \textbf{Never trust AI's experimental claims}—always verify independently
|
|
\item \textbf{Document the failures}—they reveal more than successes
|
|
\item \textbf{Use structured processes}—not free-form "learning"
|
|
\item \textbf{Embrace the mess}—clarity emerges from acknowledging confusion
|
|
\item \textbf{Maintain radical skepticism}—especially when results seem too good
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
The atoms-are-balls framework emerged from one human's crisis-forged skepticism meeting AI's confident hallucinations. In learning to navigate each other's failure modes, we found a truth neither could reach alone. |