The problem here isn't that an LLM hallucinates. The problem is that nobody asked for an AI response, and Meta pushed content to a forum that makes such claims, which could easily mislead or at least confuse people not sophisticated enough to be on the lookout for hallucinations.
Meta should be (and is) in the business of policing third-party spam on their forums that does exactly this. We can infer what must've happened - the model must've been fine-tuned on forum comments, and this would be the likely format for a response to that question. This sort of thing should've been caught by a wrapper/guard model, and will probably make a good case to add to such a model's instructions/training.
(btw: is it "an LLM" or "a LLM"? I guess I should ask an LLM which it prefers to be called)
Meta should be (and is) in the business of policing third-party spam on their forums that does exactly this. We can infer what must've happened - the model must've been fine-tuned on forum comments, and this would be the likely format for a response to that question. This sort of thing should've been caught by a wrapper/guard model, and will probably make a good case to add to such a model's instructions/training.
(btw: is it "an LLM" or "a LLM"? I guess I should ask an LLM which it prefers to be called)