Comment on ‘You Can’t Lick a Badger Twice’: Google Failures Highlight a Fundamental AI Flaw

• fushuan@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  You clearly haven’t experimented with AI much in a work environment. When asked to do specific things that you are not sure if are possible it will 100% ignore part of your input and always give you a positive response at first.

  “How can I automate outlook 2020 to do X?”
  ‘You do XYZ’
  me, after looking it up"that’s only possible in older versions"
  ‘You are totally right, you do IJK’
  “that doesn’t achieve what i asked”
  ‘Correct, you can’t do it.’

  And don’t get me started on APIs of actual frameworks… I’ve wished to punch it hard when dealing with react or spark. Luckily I usually know my stuff and only use it to find a quick example of something that I test locally before implementing of 5 mins of googling didn’t give me the baseline, but the amount of colleagues that not only blindly copy code but argue with my reasoning saying “chatgpt says so” is fucking crazy.

  When chatgpt says something I know is incorrect I ask for sources and there’s fucking none. Because it not possible my dude.

  source

  • 0xSim@lemdro.id ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    ‘Correct, you can’t do it.’

    And this is the best case scenario. Most of the time it will be:

    • How can I do <something>?
    • Here are the steps: X, Y, Z
    • No it doesn’t work, because …
    • You’re correct, it doesn’t work! 🤗 Instead you should do A, B, C to achieve <something else>
    • That’s not what I asked, I need to do <something>
    • Here are the steps: X, Y, Z

    Useless shit you can’t trust.

    source

    • fushuan@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I’d prefer if I didn’t have to iterate twice…

      source