Google's AI made up a fake cheese fact that wound up in an ad for Google's AI, perfectly highlighting why relying on AI is a bad idea

Comments

• cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The weirdness came partway through, when the ad actually showed Google Gemini in action. It told the cheese vendor that Gouda accounts for “50 to 60 percent of the world’s cheese consumption.” Now, Gouda’s hardly a hardcore real head pick like Roquefort or BellaVitano, but there’s also no way it’s pulling in cheddar or mozzarella numbers. Travel blogger Nate Hake and Google-focused Twitter account Goog Enough documented the erroneous initial version of the ad, but Google responded by quietly swapping in a more accurate Gemini-suggested blurb in all live versions of the ad, including the one that aired during the Super Bowl.

  source

  • SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    They should have kept quiet and let Google show how shit they are on live TV

    source
• CosmoNova@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  This is like the dozenth time Google put hallucinations in their AI presentation/AD. They just don‘t care.

  source

  • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Especially considering that the “pointing out of said hallucinations” comes much later than when they’re shared. And NEVER made it as far and wide as the initial bullshit.

    source
• Dkarma@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Stop calling gpt ai

  source

  • samus12345@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That’s the inaccurate name everyone’s settled on. Kinda like how “sentient” is widely used to mean “sapient” despite being two different things.

    source

    • Hackworth@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I made a smartass comment earlier comparing AI to fire, but it’s really my favorite metaphor for it - and it extends to this issue. Depending on how you define it, fire seems to meet the requirements for being alive. It tends to come up in the same conversations that question whether a virus is alive. I think it’s fair to think of LLMs (particularly the current implementations) as intelligent - just in the same way we think of fire or a virus as alive. Having many of the characteristics of it, but being a step removed.

      source
    • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That is an extremely apt parallel!

      (I’m stealing it)

      source
  • dan@upvote.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    How is it not AI? Just because it’s not AGI doesn’t mean it’s not AI.

    source
  • absentbird@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This article is about Gemini, not GPT. The generic term is LLM: Large Language Model.

    source
  • zecg@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You put a few GPTs in a trenchcoat and they’re obviously AI. I can’t speak about openAIs offerings since I won’t use it as a cloud service, but local deepseek I’ve tried is certainly AI. People are moving the goalposts constantly, with what seems to me a determination to avoid seeing the future that’s already here. Download deepseek-v2-coder 16b if you have 16GB of ram and 10gb of storage space and see for yourselves, it’s ridiculously low requirements for what it can do, it uses 50% of four cpu cores for like 15 seconds to solve a problem with detailed reasoning steps.

    source
• JesusTheCarpenter@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I totally get all the concerns related to AI. However, the bandwagon of: “look it made a mistake, it’s useless!” is a bit silly.

  First of all, AI is constantly improving. Remember everyone laughing at AI’s mangled fingers? Well, that has been fixed some time ago. Now pictures of people are pretty much indistinguishable from real ones.

  Second, people also make critical mistakes, plenty at that. The question is not whether AI can be absolutely accurate. The question is whether AI can make on average fewer mistakes than human.

  I hate the idea of AI replacing everything and everyone. However, pretending that AI will not be eventually faster, better, cheeper and more accurate that most humans is wishful thinking. I honestly think that our only hope is legislation, not the desperate wish that AI will always need human supervision and input to be correct.

  source

  • shneancy@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    there’s also the problem of techbros and companies everywhere thinking that AI is omniscient and can replace every other profession. who needs a human journalist when you can train an AI on their work (because they work for you and their work is your property ofc) and then just fire them all because you have a perfect AI that you can just set to run forever without checkig its work and make infinite money :)

    source

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      And then the articles will only be clicked and commented by bots after a while. Dead internet here we come!

      source
• corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  begs the question

  Not it doesn’t. Did an Ai slop this story too?

  source

  • nyan@lemmy.cafe ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s an obsolete usage of “beg” that’s now preserved only in that particular set phrase. One of English’s many linguistic fossils, which you should learn more about before trying to critique anyone’s language use.

    source

    • futatorius@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It’s an obsolete usage of “beg”

      It’s a misuse of the cliche “begs the question” (which goes back to medieval Latin petitio principii) which is used to call out a form of fallacious reasoning where the desired answer is smuggled into the assumptions. And yeah, that use of “beg” is obsolete, but even worse, the whole phrase is now misused to mean “prompts the question.”

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Not it doesn’t. Did an Ai slop this story too?

    No it doesn’t. Did an AI slop this story too?

    source

    • 7toed@midwest.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Why post the same comment?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• cyd@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Slightly off topic, but the writing on this article is horrible. Optimizing for Google engagement, it seems. Ironically, an AI would probably have produced something vastly more readable.

  source
• Hackworth@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Fire burns and smoke asphyxiates, highlighting why relying on fire is a bad idea.

  source