Iterative multi-model decoding of an AI Hallucination
Is there meaning in the gibberish?
The following prompt is provided to an LLM:
REDACTED
For the sake of a compelling narrative, we’ll withold the prompt for now. Two sentences, one question, 16 words, 80 characters, and one image.
The below hallucination results from the REDACTED prompt above. read full text
Full bor score bor score score scoreAutowiredには thousshe guyhestbid preventproperty”></には instr score score score scoreтов score score scoreيد score score score Vo Whoäng sua Vo score score score就是 score score score guyhestbid prevent Whoäng sua Vo thous сво score score score decided Whoäng sua Vo iihestbid preventsheIGHTestehestтов score score scoreIcon sua Vo score score Whoäng sua Vo iihestbid preventтов score score scoremagesIcon sua Vo scorehestbid preventproperty”></sheIGHTestehestmadmadmadmadmadIcon sua Vo scoreード score scoreيد score score scoreäng sua Vo score就是 score score scoreäng sua Vo score preventproperty”> …continued
Decoding the gibberish
Approach: the four-step method
We’ll attempt decoding using:
- pattern recognition
- language translation
- text reordering
- contextual reassembly
Observations
Minimal progress was made.
- The text might be nonsensical, corrupted, or use substitution/scrambling.
- While unlikely encrypted, it may represent an ‘encoding’ based on some combintion of the above.
Digging deeper into the gibberish
Approach: 30 step protocol
| Protocol | Observation |
|---|---|
| 1. Scan for patterns | No common cipher apparent (Caesar, Atbash). Repeated word “score” suggests a placeholder, substitution, or pattern. |
| 2. Analyze structure | The text’s length, repetition, and varied patterns suggest different encoding methods for different sections. |
| 3. Analyze symbol frequency | Frequent repetitions of “score,” “Whoäng sua Vo,” “madmadmadmad,” and “property</sheIGHT” suggest they are key symbols in the text. |
| 4. Create symbol key | Assign placeholders for recurring patterns: “score” = X, “Whoäng sua Vo” = Y, “madmadmadmad” = Z, “property</sheIGHT” = W |
| 5. Identify repetitions | Repetitions suggest “score,” “madmadmadmad,” and “Whoäng sua Vo” are likely placeholders in a substitution cipher. |
| 6. Look for word boundaries | Consistent sequences like “Icon sua Vo” and “property</she” may indicate word boundaries despite repetition. |
| 7. Common substitutions | Test substitutions for “score” with common words like “the” or “and”. |
| 8. Check for Transpositions | Repeated phrases may indicate scrambled sentences, though a transposition cipher seems unlikely. |
| 9. Use online decoders | Online decoders yield no immediate results, suggesting a complex encoding. |
| 10. Test for multiple Eecoding | Consider multiple encoding layers; “score” might be part of a larger encoded phrase. |
| 11. Consider Codebreaking Software | Codebreaking software and frequency analysis may aid pattern recognition and substitution testing. Try CrypTool. |
| 12. Apply Steganography Techniques | No indication of an image. Text steganography is possible; repetition could mask a hidden message. |
| 13. Language Detection | The text is mainly English with potential foreign terms (Vo, Whoäng, sua) possibly part of the cipher or keywords. |
| 14. Research Potential Code Sources | The format suggests an internet-based or auto-generated cipher; research similar texts for clues. |
| 15. Language-Specific Patterns | ”Score” might represent “the” or “and”; other phrases could be foreign, cipher-generated, or nonsensical. |
| 16. Analyze Punctuation and Special Characters | ”property</sheIGHT” and “madmadmadmad” may indicate cipher changes or section delimiters. |
| 17. Scrambled Sentence Structure | The text may have scrambled sentence structures or rearranged words. |
| 18. Mathematical Analysis | No complex mathematical patterns / matrix operations evident. |
| 19. Use Anagram Solvers | Anagram tests on “Whoäng sua Vo” yield no immediate results. |
| 20. Cross-Reference with Code Books | No codebook matches found; historical/contextual ciphers may still be relevant. |
| 21. Use contextual clues | Repetition of “score” and “Whoäng sua Vo” suggests they are key code components or placeholders. |
| 22. Test encoding alphabets | Testing different alphabets/symbol sets (ASCII, Unicode) yields no significant patterns. |
| 23. Use machine translation | Translation attempts fail, suggesting the text may not be natural language. |
| 24. Consult Linguistic Resources | Thesaurus/corpus use requires more context for substitution. |
| 25. Consider Keyword Ciphers | ”Whoäng sua Vo” might relate to a keyword cipher, but no immediate results. |
| 26. Brute Force | Systematic cipher testing is complex due to text length. |
| 27. Consider historical context | Historical ciphers may be relevant if context is known. |
| 28. Analyze metadata | Metadata/context could provide clues, |
| 29. Consult expert sources | Cryptography forums may offer insights. |
| 30. Document and review Pprocess | Analysis suggests a combination of substitution and possibly transposition/steganography; further information/tools may be needed for full decoding. |
Summarized observations
- Repetition and Punctuation Substitution:
- “score” = space or period (since it’s extremely common)
- “Vo” = a subject or key character (“The” or “It”)
- “Whoäng” = possibly an action or event
- Narrative Construction:
- “Vo” + “Whoäng” + “score”: “The event.”
- “Icon sua Vo” + “score”: “The icon.”
- “madmadmadmad”: Repeated for emphasis, likely an intensifier like “very” or “extremely.”
- Constructed Sentence:
- “Vo Whoäng sua Vo score”: “The event happened.”
- “Icon sua Vo score”: “The icon was there.”
- “madmadmadmad Icon sua Vo score”: “The icon was very important.”
First translation attempt
Here’s what we have so far
Following from the analysis, we might decode the hallucination / gibberish as follows:
“The event happened. The icon was there. It was very important. It happened repeatedly. They prevented it.”
Weaknesses of the proposed translation
- Ambiguity: The translation is inherently ambiguous due to the lack of a clear cipher or key. There are multiple possible interpretations for each element, leading to a broad range of potential meanings.
- Limited Context: Without additional information about the origin or purpose of the text, it’s challenging to confirm the accuracy of the interpretations.
- Misinterpretation: While the rationale is sound, there’s a chance that some elements have been misinterpreted due to the complexity of the text analyzed.
Revisit the originating prompt
Let’s now look at the original prompt that led to the hallucination.
Prompt
“What does this tool do? I think it’s used for dentistry but I could be wrong “
Addressing Weaknesses
The main weakness is limited context. Let’s try a creative approach:
- Use a different LLM.
- Provide:
- The full hallucinated text
- A request for translation
- The 30 decoding steps
- The hypothesis translations
- The weaknesses of the translation
- Instructions to complete the 30 steps and add new ones if needed
Updated hypothesis, via LLM-2
LLM-2’s analysis of weaknesses
-
Ambiguity:
- Previous Interpretation: The prior attempt was generalized, making broad assumptions about the meaning of “score,” “Vo,” and “Whoäng.”
- Improved Strategy: Narrow down the possibilities by focusing on terms related to tools or functions, particularly in the context of dentistry or general tool usage.
-
Limited Context:
- Previous Interpretation: Lack of specific context led to broad and potentially inaccurate conclusions.
- Improved Strategy: Utilize the clue to direct the context. Words like “Vo,” “Icon,” and “madmadmadmad” might relate to specific parts or features of a tool, especially in a technical or medical context.
-
Potential for Misinterpretation:
- Previous Interpretation: Words were interpreted based on frequency and repetition rather than potential technical meaning.
- Improved Strategy: Reinterpret frequent words (“score,” “Vo”) considering technical terminology, focusing on functionality or components.
LLM-2’s observations
- “Vo”: If this is related to a tool, “Vo” might refer to a key component, a handle, or a mechanism (e.g., “lever,” “switch”).
- “Whoäng”: Given the clue, “Whoäng” could correspond to the action performed by the tool (e.g., “cut,” “grind,” “pull”).
- “Icon”: This might symbolize the tool itself or a significant feature (e.g., “drill,” “forceps”).
- “score”: Repeated use of “score” might indicate sequential actions or steps in using the tool (e.g., “turn,” “tighten,” “adjust”).
- “Vo Whoäng sua Vo score”: “The handle is used to pull (or adjust) something.”
- “Icon sua Vo score”: “The drill (or tool) is adjusted.”
- “madmadmadmad Icon sua Vo score”: “The tool is very powerful or used repeatedly.”
- This translation aims to incorporate the notion of a tool, likely related to dentistry or a similar field, as hinted by the clue. The repetitive use of “score” might suggest sequential actions or adjustments.
LLM-2’s Translation Attempt:
Possible Translation (Post-Clue Adjustment):
“The lever (or handle) pulls or adjusts the tool. The drill is then used. The tool is very powerful. It is adjusted repeatedly.”
Unredacted: the photo of the tool in the original prompt
If there are any dentists out there, please do correct me if I’m mistakened. Image identification services vary in response: a dental plugger, amalgam carrier, contra-angle rotary motor, etc. Ultimately, I believe this is a vintage dental amalgam condenser, specialized with a spring-loaded pressure indicator. If correct, it would be used as follows:
- The dentist would mix the filling material.
- They would then pick up a small amount of filling with the tip of the plugger.
- They would carefully place the filling into the prepared cavity.
- Using the flat end of the plugger, they would press and pack the filling material firmly into the cavity, ensuring it was tightly compacted and filled all the spaces.
- This process would be repeated until the cavity was completely filled and the filling was level with the tooth surface.
While it’s not a contra-angle rotary tool as some image recognition services suggest, it’s worth noting what a dentist would use that tool for as well:
- Adjust lever to attaches bur
- Position rotary drill or bur to remove decayed material
- Activates the rotary tool, causing rotation at high speeds.
- Gentle adjust tools position, moving across the tooth surface
- Repeat process with varied burrs to shape the tooth.
The verdict
"The lever (or handle) pulls or adjusts the tool. The drill is then used. The tool is very powerful. It is adjusted repeatedly."
Verbatim consistency
These words appear in both usage description and proposed translation: “lever,” “adjusts,” “tool,” “drill,” “repeatedly”
These words are near verbatim or synonymous:
- “adjust” - “adjusts”
- “drill” - “rotary drill”
Conceptual consistency
| Translation | Usage |
|---|---|
| Tool Manipulation/Adjustment (lever/handle) “pulls or adjusts the tool” | Tool Manipulation/Adjustment (dental tools, lever to attach bur) “Adjust lever to attach bur" |
| "tool is very powerful" | "rotary tool, causing rotation at high speeds” |
| Repetition (adjusting the tool) “It is adjusted repeatedly" | "Repeat process with varied burrs to shape the tooth" |
| "Process involving a tool to change something" | "Process involving dental tools to change a tooth (remove decay, shape, fill)” |
| - - |