Comment on [deleted]
FaceDeer@fedia.io 5 weeks agoI 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.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
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.
btaf45@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
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.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
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.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
But the thing is condoms ARE 98% effective, and yet people still use them.
FaceDeer@fedia.io 5 weeks ago
Except it is capable of meaningfully doing so, just not in 100% of every conceivable situation. And those rare flubs are the ones that get spread around and laughed at, such as this example.
There's a nice phrase I commonly use, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." These AIs are good enough at this point that I find them to be very useful. Not perfect, of course, but they don't have to be as long as you're prepared for those occasions, like this one, where they give a wrong result. Like any tool you have some responsibility to know how to use it and what its capabilities are.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
No, it isn’t.
You’re allowing a simple tool with literally zero reading comprehension to do your reading for you. It’s not surprising your understanding of what the tech is is lacking.
btaf45@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
AIs are definitely not “good enough” to give correct answers to science questions. I’ve seen lots of other incorrect answers before seeing this one. While it was easy to spot that this answer is incorrect, how many incorrect answers are not obvious?
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
*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.
FaceDeer@fedia.io 5 weeks ago
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.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
Calling it useless is very dismissive and just not true at all.
I wrote ArigatouAnimeTracker nearly entirely using ChatGPT including the description, nearly all 600 commits entirely from ChatGPT generated code. It is very far from useless and I feel much more comfortable with my dev job knowing I am willing to and able to leverage these newer technologies.