Comment on AI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon study
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 6 days agoSearch AI in Lemmy and check out every article on it. It definitely is media spreading all the hate. And like this article is often some money yellow journalism
I think it’s lemmy users. I see a lot more LLM skepticism here than in the news feeds.
In my experience, LLMs are like the laziest, shittiest know-nothing bozo forced to complete a task with zero attention to detail and zero care about whether it’s crap, just doing enough to sound convincing.
Wdym, I have seen researchers using it to aid their research significantly. You just need to verify some stuff it says.
Verify every single bloody line of output. Top three to five are good, then it starts guessing the rest based on the pattern so far. If I wanted to make shit up randomly, I would do it myself.
People who trust LLMs to tell them things that are right rather than things that sound right have fundamentally misunderstood what an LLM is and how it works.
It’s not that bad, the output isn’t random. Time to time, it can produce novel stuffs like new equations for engineering. Also, verification does not take that much effort. At least according to my colleagues, it is great. Also works well for coding well-known stuffs, as well!
😆 I can’t believe how absolutely silly a lot of you sound with this.
LLM is a tool. It’s output is dependent on the input. If that’s the quality of answer you’re getting, then it’s a user error. I guarantee you that LLM answers for many problems are definitely adequate.
It’s like if a carpenter said the cabinets turned out shit because his hammer only produces crap
If that’s the quality of answer you’re getting, then it’s a user error
You have an irrational and wildly inaccurate belief in the infallibility of LLMs.
You’re also denying the evidence of my own experience. What on earth made you think I would believe you over what I saw with my own eyes?
Why are you giving it data. It’s a chat and language tool. It’s not data based. You need something trained to work for that specific use. I think Wolfram Alpha has better tools for that.
TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
all that proves is that lemmy users post those articles. you’re skirting around psychotic territory here, seeing patterns where there are none, reading between the lines to find the cover-up that you are already certain is there, with nothing to convince you otherwise.
if you want to be objective and rigorous about it, you’d have to start with looking at all media publications and comparing their relative bias.
then you’d have to consider their reasons for bias, because it could just be that things actually suck. (in other words, if only 90% of media reports that something sucks when 99% of humanity agrees it sucks, maybe that 90% is actually too low, not too high)
this is all way more complicated than media brainwashing.