Return to Answer

The difference between Dunning-Kruger effect and OverLordGoldDragon effect is that humans naturally exhibit some level of confidence and self-reflection while LLMs may not model confidence and self-reflection at all. Thus they hallucinate when asked to self-reflect on their confidence. Asking the test subjects to self-reflect on confidence about a topic is exactly how Dunning and Kruger found their effect.

The difference between Dunning-Kruger effect and OverLordGoldDragon effect is that humans naturally exhibit some level of confidence and self-reflection while LLMs may not model confidence and self-reflection at all. Thus they hallucinate when asked to self-reflect on their confidence. Asking the test subjects to self-reflect on confidence about a topic is exactly how Dunning and Kruger found their effect. Hallucinated answers of LLMs should not be taken at face value, because this is where the LLM will likely be inconsistent.
What good is it, if an LLM answers that it is "very confident" as often as it answers "not confident at all" when asked the very same question multiple times? You won't be able to determine the actual confidence of an LLM that does not model confidence from its hallucinations.

Again, see my other answer on what's necessary for an LLM to actually possess confidence, the ability to employ it in answering and thus exhibit bugs that could be compared to Dunning-Krueger effect.

OverLordGoldDragon has made a valid point about redefining the Dunning-Krueger effect for LLMs. The definition makes sense and might be seen as obvious. I chose to tiptoe changing existing definitions, because I like to leave original definitions in place. In fact, I would propose that the redefined effect should be called the OverLordGoldDragon effect and be stated like:

The difference between Dunning-Krueger effect and OverLordGoldDragon effect is that humans naturally exhibit some level of confidence and self-reflection while LLMs may not model confidence and self-reflection at all. Thus they hallucinate when asked to self-reflect on their confidence.

Again, see my other answer on what's necessary for an LLM to actually possess confidence, the ability to employ it in answering and thus exhibit bugs that could be compared to Dunning-Kruger effect.

OverLordGoldDragon has made a valid point about redefining the Dunning-Kruger effect for LLMs. The definition makes sense and might be seen as obvious. I chose to tiptoe changing existing definitions, because I like to leave original definitions in place. In fact, I would propose that the redefined effect should be called the OverLordGoldDragon effect and be stated like:

The difference between Dunning-Kruger effect and OverLordGoldDragon effect is that humans naturally exhibit some level of confidence and self-reflection while LLMs may not model confidence and self-reflection at all. Thus they hallucinate when asked to self-reflect on their confidence. Asking the test subjects to self-reflect on confidence about a topic is exactly how Dunning and Kruger found their effect.

If that's the new definition, then yes, LLMs will almost certainly exhibit that. The "specific and careful design choices" are

(above definition is extrapolated from OverLordGoldDragon: "If AI is fed data that's only confident on a subject, the "best fit" may be to mimic said confidence.")

If that's the new definition, then yes, LLMs will almost certainly exhibit that. The "specific and careful design choices" are