this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
97 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
59091 readers
5286 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A great deal of energy, hardware and software went into providing that wrong answer.
We should leave AI to the realm of producing fringe/impossible porn, like it was meant for and like what everyone actually wants from it. All this "search engine" stuff is just cover like when you buy some non-lube products like groceries along with the tube of astroglide at 1:00 AM.
load more comments
(2 replies)
AI is statistically generated word salad.
Yah I'm so happy every major internet and tech company is deciding to deliberately power every system we use with random word salad generators, there's no chance will cause any problems.
load more comments
(7 replies)
I thought this was fake or a bad result or something, but totally just duplicated it. Wow.
If you read the block of text…. It doesn’t make sense either.
I expect if you follow the references you'd find one of them to be one of those "if Earth was a grain of sand" analogies.
People like laughing at AI but usually these silly-sounding answers accurately reflect the information the search returned.
It's in the quote that they scaled it.
The point is that the entire alleged value is the ability to parse the reading material and extract the key points, but because it doesn't resemble intelligence in any way, it isn't actually capable of meaningfully doing so.
Yes, not being able to distinguish between the real answer and a "banana for scale" analogy is a big problem that shows how fucking useless the technology is.
It’s in the quote that they scaled it.
Yes but they supposedly scaled it to "one meter per meter". A "scale where the distance from the Sun to Earth is 150 million km" is the actual distance.
lol I did miss that, but it was enough to make it not a guess that its source was scaling for comparison.
My whole point was the same as your OP, though. A condom that's 95% effective isn't worth shit. You can't let a toy without reading comprehension do your reading for you.
But the thing is condoms ARE 98% effective, and yet people still use them every single day.
Nothing is perfect, humans, AI/LLMs, etc, no matter what, absolutely nothing is.
Regardless, anything I say about AI/LLMs that isn't that it's terrible and useless and nobody should/would ever use it is going to be met with criticism.
*Dangerous! Don't forget how dangerous it is — considering all tech bros and corps are acting as though LLM's are on the verge of real intelligence, instead of being a stochastic parrot that's essentially a mathematical magic trick.
Our "intelligence" agencies already kill innocent people based entirely on metadata — because they simply live or work around areas that known terrorists occupy — now imagine if an AI was calling the shots. The more LLM's are integrated into our day to day lives, the more people will trust them and disregard their own logic, and the more dangerous they become.
Our "intelligence" agencies already kill innocent people based entirely on metadata — because they simply live or work around areas that known terrorists occupy — now imagine if an AI was calling the shots.
So by your own scenario, intelligence agencies are already getting stuff wrong and making bad decisions using existing methodologies.
Why do you assume that new methodologies that involve LLMs will be worse at that? Why could they not be better? Presumably they're going to be evaluating their results when deciding whether to make extensive use of them.
"Mathematical magic tricks" can turn out to be extremely useful. That phrase can be used to describe all manner of existing techniques that are undeniably foundational to civilization.
load more comments
(16 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Like, are we sure? Has someone actually checked?
Yeah, some nerds won't shut up about their fake numbers
Forgive Bing. It’s American and doesn’t know the metric system.
Well then, what are we waiting for? Let's go visit Alpha Centauri!
Like every tool, it has its uses...but they are not those people want. LLMs are great for things where mistakes don't detract from the result (or even add to it) like brainstorming, art, music, disinformation...all that good stuff.
Yeah that's why it would be very nice if they would stop integrating it into fucking search engines.
They wanna fucking integrate it in everything, dumbfucks. This is why meritocracy is dead, the people with the means to determine where we go as a society are "number go up" people.
That's what I think too. AI is mainly useful for things that don't have right or wrong answers.
Although this incorrect answers is obvious, what about all the times where an incorrect answer from AI is not obvious?
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Hey, I have a half tank of gas, I think I will go check it out.
It’s ~~126 miles to Chicago~~ 13.6 kilometers to Alpha Centauri, we’ve got a full tank of gas, half a pack off cigarettes, it’s dark, and we’re wearing sunglasses.
get in
load more comments
(1 replies)
Relying on LLM for any facts without verifying is playing with fire.
I suspect there’s a quite-overlapping Venn diagram of people who rely on LLMs for their “facts” with people who believe the earth is flat and people who believe ancient aliens are real.
You may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.
load more comments
(4 replies)
When techbros said "you can type a question and the AI will answer", they seem to have forgotten that we expect the answers to be true and accurate.
And they seem to have forgotten that to do that, they actually need a database of facts.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It propably grabbed the info off some random number-confusing dude like me, who recently posted the Earth's diameter would be about 6 km instead of 6000.
Edit: oops, did it again. Meant radius, not diameter...
Have you gone 13.6 km up there to verify it's not there?
13.6km is 44,619ft.
So nearly every time one flies commercial, yes, since cruising altitude is between 30,000 and 40,000 feet. I think a large triple-star system would be quite visible at that point.
I imagine if you were 13.6 km from a star you would either burn up or fall into the star's gravity well.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
So close, yet so far...as once Elvis said
view more: next ›