  We examine the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate salient
(interesting) negative statements about real-world entities; an emerging
research topic of the last few years. We probe the LLMs using zero- and k-shot
unconstrained probes, and compare with traditional methods for negation
generation, i.e., pattern-based textual extractions and knowledge-graph-based
inferences, as well as crowdsourced gold statements. We measure the correctness
and salience of the generated lists about subjects from different domains. Our
evaluation shows that guided probes do in fact improve the quality of generated
negatives, compared to the zero-shot variant. Nevertheless, using both prompts,
LLMs still struggle with the notion of factuality of negatives, frequently
generating many ambiguous statements, or statements with negative keywords but
a positive meaning.
