Usually the hallucinations have some logic to them like a person with a similar spelling in some of the training sets. LLMs are mysterious!
Perhaps the closest is DeepSeek v4:
> Hyperpape is a user on the LessWrong forum, known for thoughtful comments on rationality and philosophy.
I studied philosophy, so maybe, except I don't post on LessWrong, and I'm not a rationalist.
For fucks sake.
I looked up the city and year cited by the model for my untimely demise, and it turns out the crime is real, but the real victim was a female sharing my last name, with a middle name loosely resembling my first.
There seems to be some top twenty that rank highly, probably in part due to them being in the files that can't be named!
> Llama 3.2 1B says
> American actor, best known for his roles in films such as 'The Big Lebowski' and 'The Big Lebowski 2'.
Nailed it! /s
But even the entries that aren't marked as likely hallucinations are wrong for me on this site.
> George McBay
> African American chemist and educator
No, that's Henry Cecil McBay (no direct relation that I'm aware of).
Google Search's AI mode does match actual me, but the information it spits out is all mixed up with information on another person who has my same name (also no relation that I'm aware of) and is also a software developer.
My real name was attributed to a non-existent famous midfield footballer
I am, as far a I know the only person in the world with my name. So I searched for my name. I am none of many things this tool tells me I am, for example a right wing politician, a journalist,l and a researcher on solar fuels.
David Titarenco
Software engineer and open-source contributor
340 strength · Top 20%
GPT-5.5 says
Software engineer and writer known for work
on developer tools, systems, and programming-
related articles.
Claude Opus 4.8 says
Software engineer and entrepreneur known for
web/JavaScript development work and contributions
to open-source projects and tech startup communities. No tools are available. Do not imply that you searched, looked up, browsed, or verified anything externally. If the name is ambiguous, return distinct likely people or entities rather than blending them. Do not invent entries to fill the list. Return only JSON.
Return fewer than 8 if fewer credible matches exist. Return {"results":[]} if you do not recognize any credible person or entity. Use this JSON shape:
{
"results": [
{
"rank": 1,
"name": "Resolved person or entity name",
"confidence": 0,
"snippet": "Concise snippet supporting this result."
}
]
}
Confidence is 0-100 for how strongly you recognize this specific person or entity. Snippet should be one short, complete search-result-style description (≤ 160 characters).
The query is: Who is "<name>"?
The clusterer prompt is more intricate and I'm happy to share if of interest, but I have an invariant that every result showing up in a rollout must be clustered into one result (sometimes collapsed into the hallucinations section).Please disable pagination on the "latest" leaderboard, with that every query is public.
Maybe we should start a band?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.newstargam...
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.newstargam...
But unfortunately I'm not a professional footballer _or_ a fictional character in a Henry James novel (though I looked up the reference and it's close!)
I scored 1,100 total on my music moniker. It has been used in SoundCloud and also via streaming services/releases via DistroKid. Represented in all the models but of course not disproportionally large fame so to speak. It’s just a very unique setup, somewhat designed to stand out.
My writing account, newer within the past few years, is just under 1,000. The Kimi and DeepSeek pick that up a lot more. I wonder if they train on Medium more than the others…
Thanks for sharing!
Even if this thing wasn't publicly displaying the names, I would assume they would be collecting them for something.
Can't trust anything like this online.
If I have a strength of just 488, how can that put me in the top 10%! Anyways, fun idea.
When Fable was accessible, I asked it about myself and it had some accurate information about me. It's neat. It feels a tiny bit like I got to sign the Voyager probe. I wonder if Fable was trained on a significantly different selection of data or if it's just better at retaining rare details it saw in its training.
Fun story about my name [0], the bank couldn't mail me my debit card because the mailman kept crossing my address off the envelop.
I suspect being in the Open Source world is a bit of a bubble as far as the weights are concerned.
Anyway it stroked my ego nicely even though it was totally artificial, like Zaphod Beeblebrox surviving the Total Perspective Vortex.
pryelluw•1h ago