Then why is Google using it for question like that?
Surely it should be advanced enough to realise it’s weakness with this kind of questions and just don’t give an answer.
I find it bizarre that people find these obvious cases to prove the tech is worthless. Like saying cars are worthless because they can’t go under water.
knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
They are using it for every question. It’s pointless. The only reason they are doing it is to blow up their numbers.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The only reason they are doing it is to blow up their numbers.
Ding ding ding.
It’s so they can have impressive metrics for shareholders.
“Our AI had n interactions this quarter! Look at that engagement!”, with no thought put into what user problems it solves.
It’s the same as web results in the Windows start menu. “Hey shareholders, Bing received n interactions through the start menu, isn’t that great? Look at that engagement!”, completely obfuscating that most of the people who clicked are probably confused elderly users who clicked on a web result without realising.
Line on chart must go up!
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yeah, but … they also can’t just do nothing and possibly miss out on something. Especially if they already invested a lot.
echodot@feddit.uk 1 month ago
Well it also can’t code very well either
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
[deleted]echodot@feddit.uk 1 month ago
I feel like that was supposed to be an insult but because it made literally no sense whatsoever, I really can’t tell.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
No not really, just an observation. It literally said you are a boring person. Not sure whats not to get.
Bye.
figjam@midwest.social 1 month ago
Understanding the bounds of tech makes it easier for people to gage its utility. The only people who desire ignorance are those that profit from it.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Sure. But you can literally test almost all frontier models for free. It’s not like there is some conspiracy or secret. Even my 73 year old mother uses it and knows it’s general limits.
FishFace@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Saying “it’s worth trillions of dollars huh” isn’t really promoting that attitude.
EnsignWashout@startrek.website 1 month ago
I find it bizarre that people find these obvious cases to prove the tech is worthless. Like saying cars are worthless because they can’t go under water.
This reaction is because conmen are claiming that current generations of LLM technology is going to remove our need for experts and scientists.
We’re not demanding submersible cars, we’re just laughing about the people paying top dollar for the lastest electric car while plannig an ocean cruise.
I’m confident that there’s going to be a great deal of broken… everything…built with AI “assistance” during the next decade.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s not what you are doing at all. You are not laughing. Anti ai people are outraged, full of hatred and ready to pounce on anyone who isn’t as anti as they are. It’s a super emotional issue, especially on fediverse.
You may be confident, because you probably don’t know how software is built. Nobody is going to just abandon all the experience they have, vibe code something and release whatever. Thats not how it works.
EnsignWashout@startrek.website 1 month ago
because you probably don’t know how software is built.
Oh shit. Nevermind then.
mrductape@eviltoast.org 1 month ago
Well technically cars can go underwater. They just cannot get out because they stop working.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Intentionally missing the point is not an argument in itself.
skisnow@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Not bizarre at all.
The point isn’t “they can’t do word games therefore they’re useless”, it’s “if this thing is so easily tripped up on the most trivial shit that a 6-year-old can figure out, don’t be going round claiming it has PhD level expertise”.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I don’t want to defend ai again, but it’s a technology, it can do some things and can’t do others. By now this should be obvious to everyone. Except to the people that believe everything commercials tell them.
kouichi@ani.social 1 month ago
How many people do you think know that AIs are “trained on tokens”, and understand what that means? It’s clearly not obvious to those who don’t, which are roughly everyone.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You don’t have to know about tokens to see what ai can and cannot do.
sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
332 instances of lawyers in Australia using AI evidence which “hallucinated”.
And this week one was finally punished.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Ok? So, what you are saying is that some lawyers are idiots. I could have told you that before ai existed.
1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
A six year old can read and write Arabic, Chinese, Ge’ez, etc. and yet most people with PhD level experience probably can’t, and it’s probably useless to them. LLMs can do this also. You can count the number of letters in a word, but so can a program written in a few hundred bytes of assembly. It’s completely pointless to make LLMs to do that, as it’d just make them way less efficient than they need to be while adding nothing useful.
skisnow@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
LOL, it seems like every time I get into a discussion with an AI evangelical, they invariably end up asking me to accept some really poor analogy that, much like an LLM’s output, looks superficially clever at first glance but doesn’t stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.
1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
it’s more that the only way to get some anti AI crusader that there are some uses for it is to put it in an analogy that they have to actually process rather than spitting out an “ai bad” kneejerk.
I’m probably far more anti AI than average, for 95% of what it’s pushed for it’s completely useless, but that still leaves 5% that it’s genuinely useful for that some people refuse to accept.
echodot@feddit.uk 1 month ago
So if the AI can’t do it then that’s just proof that the AI is too smart to be able to do it? That’s your arguement is it. Nah, it’s just crap
You think just because you attached it to an analogy that makes it make sense. That’s not how it works, look I can do it.
My car is way too technologically sophisticated to be able to fly, therefore AI doesn’t need to be able to work out how many l Rs are in “strawberry”.
See how that made literally no sense whatsoever.
1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
Except you’re expecting it to do everything. Your car is too “technically advanced” to walk on the sidewalk, but wait, you can do that anyway and don’t need to reinvent your legs