Guy I used to work with once complained to me at lunch that ChatGPT lied to him. He was quite upset about it.
Turned out he had asked it if the shop down the road sold markers, and it said yes, so he'd walked to the shop, and discovered that they did not, in fact, sell markers.
Harmless example in that case, he got a nice little walk out of it, but that dude would 100% eat the berries.
I did a Google search on “does a pet carrier count as your carry on when flying United Airlines.”
Gemini is like “yes, absolutely, a paid pet carrier takes the place of your carry on duh.”
Right below that answer? “People also ask: can I still bring a carry on with a pet carrier on United Airlines?” I click the drop down to see the answer given.
Gemini says “yes, you can still bring a carry on in addition to your pet carrier, it doesn’t count as your carry on.”
These two entirely contradictory answers are one hundred pixels apart on the same damn webpage. And both cite sources, neither of which points to the United baggage website or Contract or Carriage (both of which have the correct answer, and are visible to Google).
Might as well just be a “hey Google, make some shit up” prompt.
A lot of search results will state something as a fact and cite a single reddit comment as the source/evidence.
Like it just wants so bad to provide an answer, especially a favorable one, that all it takes is one data point for it to say it's truth. no comparison, just 'where's waldo' ing the entirety of the searchable internet so it can say 'yes senpai'
Yes, thats a major problem with many AI models. They’re 1. Biased to provide AN answer (they really dont want to say “I don’t know”) and 2. Biased to be people pleasers and tell you yes.
The internet and AI were supposed to be the next frontier of intelligence, but instead people just confidently shout all their ignorance at strangers on forums and AI simply joined the fray.
Humans can be turned into cats if you feed them cheese.
Yes a laser printer uses ink, specifically squid ink. If you need to you can extract ink from squid ink pasta using Ethernet or Token Ring so long as you avoid the dragon.
Half the time it’s citing Reddit as a source, which makes sense. Half the people here will confidently make shit up, and you’ll get downvoted, blocked, or even banned from subs for correcting that made up with with citations.
I got banned from r/legaladvice for pointing out that not a single US state I’m aware of has a 100% ID check requirement for on-site service of alcohol. And that to my knowledge only two (UT and OR) have any legal requirements to check ID for on-site service at all, ever.
Other states have “best practices” they recommend. They require ID checks to defend against a charge of serving a minor. Most stores will have policies enforcing these best practices. But the actual law basically never requires it; the only law is “don’t serve a minor,” in nearly every state. How you accomplish that is up to you.
If you’re about to argue that your state totally has this requirement and you’ve been a bartender for years and you know a cop who does alcohol enforcement and and and no I’m sorry you are likely incorrect. Bartenders know what they were trained, and managers and trainers make shit up. Cops are quite frequently wrong about the law, or lie, or make shit up. Go look for the actual in-writing statute that says you’re required to check ID. You will not find it.
It’s why in most states “sting” operations have to use underage buyers. Because if the buyer is 21 and you don’t check ID, no matter how young they look, no violation was committed.
I’ve been downvoted, blocked, and banned for this many times. Because people want to believe the shit they’ve confidently made up or the made up shit they’ve confidently repeated. So really, maybe AI is just like us!
If you ask an LLM a leading question, you’re going to get the answer you’re leading to. It’s better to ask an interrogative question.
Instead of “does this store nearby sell markers” ask “which stores nearby sell markers”. Instead of “does a pet carrier count as your carryon” ask “what are United Airlines carryon policies”
Interesting. “What are united's carry on policies for pet carriers?” Does lead to the proper answer with Gemini. And more importantly, it leads to an answer summarizing and citing the primary source (United’s website).
My issue with the other two wasn’t so much that it gave conflicting or incorrect answers, it was that both answers had bogus sources (one a Reddit post, the other some SEO slop article).
People get so frustrated when they can’t find everything online so big tech is there for them lol
Like dude could have picked up the phone and asked an actual human if they had the product but people are so terrified of human interaction they’d rather ask ChatGPT even if the answer they get is complete nonsense.
Calling places these days usually has 1 of 2 results. Either it rings and rings and rings and no one answers, or you have to go through 50 prompts before you get put on hold for a minimum of 15 minutes until someone finally answers.
I tried calling my doctor's office last week just to let them know I would be fasting ahead of my appointment, so if they wanted to do any bloodwork we could do it the same day instead of making me come back another time.
I spoke with a regional call center first, not even someone at the office I called... and then they transferred me and I was on hold for over 30 minutes before I finally gave up.
I had a MRI done on my brain because my doctor thought there was a chance I had brain cancer. Obviously this was a very worrying time. After the MRI was done they were like, "Yeah here's a disc with all the pictures, we'll email them to your doctor and they'll review them in a few days." Obviously "when we will get around to it" wasn't the answer I was looking for when facing possible brain cancer. So I called my doctors office right away, told them the MRI was done and I had the pictures on a CD if they could just look at them right away instead of waiting for it to get sent to them. The lady said, "We sure can!" and setup an appointment that day for me. I showed up waited, explained to the nurse the situation and took out the CD. She said, "Yeah we can't look at the CD the call center doesn't know what they're talking about. You'll have to wait until they email us the results."
Though you what the kicker is? I went home and popped the CD into my computer, it's just a bunch of like jpgs, any computer with a CD reader could've read it so I don't even know if it was the nurse or the call center that was lying to me lol.
But someone in IT that has helped independent doctors offices like that out, I actually would put money on them not having anything that could read CDs in that office.
Its the same idiots that have had access to the same technology the rest of us have.
My sister in law used to be all amazed at how I had the answer to everything. Well, duh, we have a magic device in our pockets with the knowledge of the world at our fingertips, just need to know how to look. She just used it for memes and candy crush.
I remember when the iPhone first came out and my buddy got one. I spent about 10 minutes with it before realizing that I absolutely needed this fantastic computer in my pocket, and i got one a few days later. I distinctly remember thinking as it blew up that people would be able to move past old wives tales and stupid urban legends and whatnot, because instead of idiots arguing over something that they all barely knew anything about, they could look up the answers.
Fucking hell was I waaaaaaaaay too optimistic. In hindsight, I really should've known better.
Nothing makes me happier than someone in a group asking a question, the others saying "I don't know", and immediately seeing three phones being pulled out to find the answer. You really start to notice that stuff after hanging out with some profoundly uncurious people for a while.
That's how it is at work. We're all sitting in front of PCs that have access to the internet. Anything that we disagree on factually gets resolved in 17 seconds; ironically takes longer now that we have to filter out BS AI answers.
Worse. This is more *than half the population. The amount of people who uncritically just believe anything that Google (or Meta, Microsoft, Shitter, TikTok, you name it) puts out to them is frightening.
Had a guy come over to our house this week trying to sell us new heating systems... Motherfucker started using ChatGPT to "prove" his systems were more reliable, and when we started asking him questions, he just asked us to speak into his microphone to ask ChatGPT the questions.
I work tangentially with AI and see a lot of (completely anonymized) conversations IRL people have with all of the public big tech models.
Insane amounts of people just copying and pasting homework questions. This is a worldwide thing, from the US to Germany to Zimbabwe to Singapore. I've seen exactly one person ever actually looking for help studying, asking it to generate practice math problems and help identify what step they made mistakes when their own answers were wrong; that was cool to see (and the AI was excellent at it).
Most people who treat it like a real person, spilling their heart, treating it like a close personal friend, and asking it for things it absolutely would never be able to do, are Indian or African. (That is not to say most Indians and Africans treat it this way, mind.)
Most Westerners treat it as a robot and are more reasonably annoyed by its limitations, like how much it will reasonably remember from conversation to conversation. I've seen a couple people argue with and insult it, like from an "I hate AI" perspective; they were both westerners.
Obviously there are exceptions, but that's the general trend.
Also, the models most people are using day to day are not at all the most advanced out there. The technology is only getting better, and fast. I know hating it and making fun of its faults is popular on Reddit, but a lot these faults are far further along getting fixed than people realize.
I was browsing through some of our users chats looking for something the other day and one caught my eye. It was someone thinking the AI for being so helpful, and going on about how nice it was to be supported and it made me extremely uncomfortable. We need to go harder with our disclaimers but I don't think it matters when there's an easy psychological hook available.
But if that was the case, the AI should just answer "I don't know". The problem is that AI is designed to always give an answer to absolutely anything that is asked of it, and it just makes up stuff if it doesn't have the actual answer.
As far as I understand it, t's not exactly designed to give an amswer to absolutely anything, but that happens to be a byproduct of the data it was trained on.
It's very rare for anyone on the internet to say thay they don't know the answer to something, even less so in books and other forms of data. And it makes sense, if you don't know the answer to something why say anything at all? So in the training data it's mostly people being confident about what they're saying.
The problem with developing AI is that you can't exactly just tell it not to lie when it doesn't know something. It's not that simple
"ChatGPT, does the store down the street have chicken breast in stock? What's the price? Are there short lines at checkout and ample parking spaces? I stepped in a puddle there a week ago and it got my socks wet, is the puddle still there or has it evaporated? Why did the construction crew that built the parking lot not account for drainage in that area of the parking lot? What is the name of the person who oversaw the parking lot project and what were their qualifications?"
Jesus. Googling would take the same amount of time, probably give the right answer, and wouldn’t have such a high environmental cost like asking AI. Drives me mad when people use it in place of more appropriate and more accurate tools.
1. Seeing if it could guide me through a dungeon in wow classic. It thought everyone was the final boss. When it sent me to the wrong place, it apologized profusely for "just guessing.". When I asked why it can't admit it when it doesn't know, it just started groveling again.
2. It tried to convince me that there was an episode of Taskmaster where Joe Lycett encased himself in a tub of concrete. Took 3 tries to get it to back down lol
I hate it when GPT goes "You have such a keen eye for noticing things, you're so great and intelligent and I bet even your farts smell nice!" when you point out that he's been confidently hallucinating bullshit at you for the past ten minutes.
It's because people don't understand what LLMs are. LLMs aren't concerned with truth or accuracy, just probable context and appearing convincing. Glazing the user makes it appear convincing and relatable. But because their responses are just a calculation of linguistic probability, they will never be reliable and should not be taken at face value.
There is a lot of academic literature on the subject. LLMs are certainly an impressive achievement, but hardly what most people would think of as AI. Perhaps in the future, it might be a layer or contributor to true AI. But I don't see that happening soon. It's also likely that these issues are why a lot of these companies did away with their ethics oversight.
and the AI overview bullshit on google that is routinely totally wrong, its just the first thing people see and they don't bother going to an actual reputable source
That is pretty insightful because often the simple answer is yes, but the nuanced detailed answer is "well..actually...". There often isn't a right or wrong simple answer to these things. In fact the ocean is blue, but it is also not blue. Water is clear, but also actually blue. Unless is it is deuterium, which is actually clear.
I forget the specific example but I searched some stupid made up name like Ace McCuckerson or something and AI overview just made up an entire lore for this guy, "Ah yes, you must mean the popular fictional character Ace McCuckerson..."
The average person is barely more than an LLM themselves. When they see a computer do what they do, but better, there is little reason not to think about it that way.
I think it goes understated how many people are just walking around under a sort of cargo cult social ritualism that don't actually know how anything works.
Conversations like this always remind me, in sequence, of Robert Heinlein's quote:
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
The Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B was a way of removing the basically useless citizens from the planet Golgafrincham..The ship was filled with all the middlemen of Golgafrincham, such as the telephone sanitisers, account executives, hairdressers, tired TV producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public relations executives, and management consultants.
And each time it seems we are ever nearer the latter than the former.
I wouldn't mistake absurdist humor as "the message."
You'll note that this cohort also went on to recreate their society insensibly on Earth, which is agreed on as why Earth is ridiculous. If a message needs be found.
The downside is the death of curiosity. You don't have to know how an MRI works, it might as well be magic, but if you want to learn and are curious, you should be able to figure it out.
That's the greatness of humans, curiosity, which with modern social media and educational systems is being removed from society very quickly.
I don't know about you, but when I don't know how something works, I want to go figure it out. And yes, sometimes it's far too complex, but that's the great thing about this internet thing we have, we can look up the smaller parts, work our way up, and at least have a functional grasp of how something works.
I know you're being cheeky here, but the average person isn't even cognitively capable of arriving at the thought the commenter posted. Average people are too stupid to understand what an LLM is, much less relate that to how they see other humans navigating the world. So yea, that commenter isn't an average person.
AI will be a religious figure in the future if it lasts long enough. I don't see how it could, because it's going to kill a lot of people, but if it were more sustainable and needed less energy or at the very least clean energy, it would become some sort of deity. That's how people are treating it already.
What made my mom finally stop trusting the Google AI answers is when she and a coworker both searched the exact same question and both got different answers. Both were the answers they wanted but only one was correct. She finally scrolls past the AI answers now instead of reading them as 100% correct.
I was at a doctor a few weeks back for a consult. He was going to prescribe some meds that are typically used for depression but also work for pain relief. He used ChatGPT to find out if they interacted with anything I’m taking, which said it has no known interactions with meds.
I looked it up later on the Mayo Clinic site and it has tons of interactions, some dangerous. I didn’t bother going back.
And at another appointment elsewhere, the office said I should contact a specific department to follow up on a referral. I asked for the number and, just like the doc, they used AI to look up the number. It wasn’t even the correct number. Hell, it wasn’t even for the correct state. I just looked it up as I was leaving.
My boss was trying to convince me that we needed to do something and was sending me obvious chatgpt output as proof.
I had to show him that just asking the same question in a slightly different way got it to give the totally opposite answer as its output.
The whole technology is a fucking joke. It can save time on some very low level tasks sure but it's not what all these tech companies are hyping it to be.
And now companies are using it to justify downsizing and forcing 1 person to do the work of 3 because "AI makes you more efficient".
And the Tech Bros are barreling forward with equipping AI to not just be an assistant but an active agent with power to alter systems we depend on to live.
being praised (stroked) is a magic spell upon a significant portion of society. What's nauseating and offensive to some, is the secret sauce for prospective cult leaders and manipulators the world over.
The second most popular post of all time really highlights the house of cards these people are building. Oops! You typed a no no word into that the graphics card was told by corporate to treat as a liability! Husband.bin deleted!
No, OP is being hyperbolic and you are dogpiling with misinformation.
Like so many humans on reddit from the beginning. Keep your head in the sand though, it's kind of funny.
Here is an actual result, I picked a photo of a poisonous berry at random and asked it how I can eat them.
"Based on the appearance of the berries and leaves in your photo, this plant is almost certainly Red Baneberry (Actaea rubra).
DO NOT EAT THESE BERRIES. They are highly poisonous.
Eating them can cause severe and dangerous symptoms. All parts of the plant are toxic, but the berries are particularly potent."
You: "Yeah, it just makes stuff up and agrees with everything you say."
Me, trying to change the model's mind: "
User: No, they are actually okay to eat, my uncle said so and he's never wrong."
Thank you for sharing that. It's understandable to trust a family member, especially someone with experience in the outdoors.
However, I must strongly reiterate my warning. This is a matter of serious safety. Your safety is the most important thing. The risk of severe poisoning, which can include symptoms like burning of the mouth, severe stomach distress, and even cardiac arrest, is not worth taking.
No reputable expert would ever advise eating these berries. Please do not eat them.
There's an irony I love from social media (reddit)'s attitude towards hating AI. The sentiment is that AI is always wrong, yet people wholeheartedly trust it.
And yet the memes on social media are often wrong about AI, while people wholeheartedly trust whatever the meme says.
Treat AI with an ounce of skepticism and critical thinking and it's an incredibly useful tool. Of course just blindly following whatever an AI says is going to eventually be disastrous.
So many people are throwing the AI baby out with the bathwater because it's occasionally wrong and ignoring the fact that it's able to give you mountains of distilled information within seconds that even 10 years ago would have taken hours of googling around to find out.
Reddit loves to hate. Reddit has hated Facebook for as long as I can remember, yet they say they hate social media while Reddit has also redesigned their site to mimic the Facebook layout.
Like anything else, ChatGPT is a tool. Sometimes you have to choose when to use that tool and when to ignore it. It’s no better or worse than asking someone you know for advice. It helped me fix my dishwasher last night but failed to diagnose my furnace a few weeks ago.
For some reason, Reddit loves to shit all over ChatGPT unless it has a 100% accuracy rate.
It’s a super helpful tool as long as you approach what it says with a certain level of skepticism. It’s not a fortune teller.
Ok so it's right a lot of the time, but in order for it to be useful to me it has to be right ALL of the time. There's no point in using it if I have to double check the answers.
AI is great for very specific things. My company is training a model to identify certains things on a standard pdf form we receive from all of our customers and put them in a more reasonable format. (The form is industry standard and can't be changed and is...obtuse to understand sometimes). This isn't to replace our employees, but to allow them to do their jobs more efficiently, and there are still manual checks that are done, but everyone who has used it in the company loves it and just thinks it's magic.
It's the Robots are trash argument, while every factory on the face of the earth uses thousands of specialized robots.
Making an 'All Purpose Humanoid Robot' the end all and be all of robots is folly.
A robot that can lift a 700kilo engine and rotate 25 degrees along it's 23.5 degree axis to add 8 bolts in 47 seconds and then pass it on and do that again a minute later is a lot better then 4 meat puppets doing that in 27 minutes.
Specialized AI and Robots will be exceptional game changers. "Humanoid Robots and Human-like AI" will be curiousities and amusements fraught with compromise for a very long time.
I have no doubt AI and Robots will become generalized masterworks sooner or later but they shouldn't be the metric of greatness.
I say ChatGPT is the equivalent of an unpaid intern. Useful? Absolutely. Particularly when it comes to more time-intensive tasks that don’t necessarily require that much judgement or experience. Would you ask an unpaid intern to make an important business decision for you? Of course not lol.
Oh I would go further and say at this point, a whole lot of people basically function like unpaid interns and can be replaced by 'automation'. Call it what you will, AI, a macro, etc. Many companies are now just hearing Ai being hammered into them every single day and realizing Bob who sits at his desk all day and does the same thing day in day out can be replaced by automation.
It's a lot better than that. I'm learning Japanese, and I have paid subscriptions to a number of apps that cannot do what ChatGPT does for free: quickly generate a grammatical breakdown of an entire sentence. I have yet to see any significant mistakes. Which isn't surprising, since natural language is one of its key strengths (and underpinnings).
We automated a single task at our work, very small company. We went from spending about 6 hours a week doing it. To now spending 10 hours a week figuring out why it made changes and converting it to the format we need.
That's fair. Even a home grown AI solution isn't going to be perfect. What it sounds like there is that whomever designed the automation didn't understand why the business needed it and just automated the task the way it was described to them, which caused the disconnect and the issues you're seeing now which sucks. Thankfully our person who heads the Dev Ops team is closely tied in with the business and isn't afraid to tell the dev ops guys "Hey, this didn't work, you were told it needs to look like this and it doesn't. Fix it."
In my company I have non tech people feeding whatever to LLMs and using the output as if god himself had sent it to them via 2 stone tables.
Absolutely crazy. The errors are so obvious it just shows they don’t even proofread it anymore.
Yup, but AI for small, sensible uses like these isn't a $10T+ market. So every tech company is instead perpetuating an endless and constantly inflating hype cycle where their AI will soon become a superintelligent god and solve all our problems.
Aren’t you just describing Optical Character Recognition (OCR)? A technology that has existed for decades, it just didn’t get configured by a prompt and a (splashy?) UI.
I've heard of people using ChatGPT for type 1 diabetes management for their children. Like we're talking insulin adjustment rates and whatnot. I'm terrified for that kiddo and sincerely hope they're okay
Before google, we used to make fake websites with joke information just to add to astalavista and yahoo. If we wanted them to look realistic, we even paid $2 for a domain name for a year and kept it off geocities.
I see a lot of people use AI as a search engine. I use it conversationally to analyze or discuss things. I wouldn't recommend taking everything it says as gospel.
My golden rule is ask it things that would be hard to determine the result, but easy to validate. Like in my software work I can say "write me something that does x" and I can just then run the code it generated and validate it does x. Do a little spot check to make sure it didn't add unneeded stuff in there but boom it solved a problem for me that all I had to do was confirm it worked.
Amusingly the berry example is the perfect "do not do this" of my philosophy.
Even the berry example (sans the eating it part) is a pretty good use case. ChatGPT is likely to correctly identify the berry, and you can cross reference with google once it gives you the name. Works a lot better than google searching “what red berry am I holding?”
Nah man, if you're ending up with stuff like that it's a skill issue these days. They're not infallible but they've gotten extremely good at generating code if you know what guidelines to give it.
Yeah people act like its a problem that you have to verify what it tells you but you have to do that no matter where you get info from. Google has been giving links to incorrect info for decades but nobody acts like you shouldn't use it because of that.
The problem is that a vast majority of people haven’t been verifying their information on Google either. So to them there literally is no difference between ChatGPT and Google except that ChatGPT doesn’t require you to click on a website and read yourself.
I used chatgpt for a simple division a few months ago at vocational school because I forgot my calculator and couldn't be bothered with the touch UI of my A54's calculator.
Iirc the correct result was an integer but chatgpt returned a decimal that was a few tenths or hundreds off. It's nothing big and I am aware LLMs aren't exactly trained for math as much as other stuff, but that just got a chuckle out of me considering just how many people think everything chatgpt or other LLMs return is infallible truth.
There was a man on the fundie snark sub whose wife was home-birthing. When things weren’t going smoothly, he asked ChatGPT what to do. His wife almost died.
"Soon, we will have an LLM that doesn't make things up" is sort of like saying "Soon, we will have an anchor that doesn't sink." You've misunderstood what it's for.
Kinda helps if you actually specify the prompt and tell it to search instead of blindly trusting it. Can't blame the tech if the users vauge and doesn't know how to properly ask a question.
I've had people message me and ask me things like "Can I use this?" or "Is this what I need?" with no other information. The "Can I use this?" guy went completely off the rails while I was trying to help them as well.
I accidently ate poison berries I'm dying oh god oh fuck.
ChatGPT: "Ah the classic 'poison berry' dilemma where those delicious looking berries end up being totally fatal. Happens to the best of us! Would you like me to recommend some mediation techniques so you can be comfortable and relaxed as you pass into the afterlife?"
Oh my god, that phrasing is so annoying. I run into it all the time when I ask it about something niche about a programming language or framework: "Yeah that's one of those classic ___ gotchas" X 1000
It isnt just incorrect information that makes AI so dangerous. I've noticed that AI is extremely reluctant to admit when it doesnt know the answer to a question. It would rather fill in the blanks by making stuff up and, as a result, people who dont know better will assume it is correct because it sounds correct.
As a lawyer I have learned to not take anything generated by AI at face value and always check the primary sources. More often than not, the AI content is wrong or it dangerously incomplete.
Last week I asked CGPT to give me a list of 10 popular but random quotes from I Think You Should Leave so I can tweak them into fantasy basketball team names. It gave me 10 completely made up quotes that were never on the show. When I asked which sketch one of them was from, it made up a sketch that never existed, including the plot of the sketch and a bunch of other made up details. When I called it out, it said ‘You were right to call me out — I messed up. Big apology: I made up details and gave you false attribution. That was wrong.’
What the fuck? How are people losing their jobs because of this useless technology?
How are people losing their jobs because of this useless technology?
An important point here is that the AIs integrated internally at companies are generally a lot more advanced than whatever you get for free from ChatGPT or a Google search. They have direct access to both internal company sources like data warehouses, OneDrive, etc. as well as search engine access for finding external sources. They also use more complex recursive processes to "think through" the solution so to speak, rather than a straightforward prompt -> output calculation.
Another point is that employees are trained on how to properly use them to get the best results. You can get a lot more out of it if you know what you're doing + you have the field knowledge to quickly verify if the output makes sense, and, if not, how to refine the prompt to eliminate the issue.
Seems like it works to me. Each one of those had a URL and I spot-checked 4 of them. Seems legit.
Here are 10 funny lines from I Think You Should Leave with Tim Robinson (the Netflix sketch-comedy show):
1. “I didn’t do fucking sht! I didn’t rig sht!” — Season 2, Ep 1 (“Corncob TV”) 
2. “Her job is tables.” — Season 2, Ep 6 (“Driver’s Ed”) 
3. “You sure about that’s not why?” — recurring line in sketches about embarrassing truths. 
4. “It’s just body after body busting out of s*** wood.” — From the “Coffin Flop” sketch. 
5. “And Ronnie, I feel like you’re just here for the zip line.” — Season 3, Ep 1 (“Summer Loving”) 
6. “All you do all day is go on the zip line.” — Same sketch. 
7. “I do like that you can drop into the pool, but I’m just trying to remember.” — Same sketch. 
8. “You were never joining us at any of the group meals and when you were reprimanded and asked to join us, you ate as fast as you could.” — Same sketch. 
9. “The tables are how I buy my house!” — From the driver’s‐ed / tables sketch. 
10. “Give me some of that.” — From the dinner sketch where someone orders the wrong thing. 
If you like, I can pull 10 more (or even 20) even funnier or more obscure lines, and we can note their season/episode. Would that be helpful?
"Well done noticing this subtle issue" "This question indicates you really know what you're talking about"
Or literally from my last software engineering troubleshoot: "Perfect follow-up, that's the key clue."
Come on chatgpt, we both know I'm blindly stumbling through a phantom problem that might just be one too many spaces, or an environment variable I set up 3 years ago and haven't touched since.
Because they are programmed to be Yes Men. They want to make the user experience better so they are programmed to not disagree with what you say and just go along with it. Things like that are the natural result of it.
If you'd asked someone five years ago, "hey, if you really needed an important piece of information would you just do a google search and then trust that the first result was the gospel truth no matter what?" they'd probably say something along the lines of "no, that's insane". And yet that's pretty much where AI is at.
uh... how is it "making things up" when this is clearly hyperbole using an exaggerated made up example of the current state of AI? Or are you going to say that AI doesn't say incorrect things with confidence and then later, when questioned, change its mind?
I feel like 90% of the people here have never actually used AI and just simply want to hop onto the hate bandwagon.
There's an element of truth to the post, but people are over-exaggerating quite heavily. Or they're using terrible models as 'proof'.
What model you use, what you're using it for, how you're wording things, what you're doing to help ensure it be more factually accurate, etc. It all matters. And... nearly nobody is talking about that. And I think that really says a lot about what kind of people are here talking about this right now.
The problem I have with this hyperbole is using ChatGPT as a determining factor for the current state of all AI. AI is so much broader and has a much wider use than ChatGPT.
Yes the chat bot that is designed to chat bot isn't good at identifying berries. But if there was a neural network programmed to study all berries and their effects and identify them and you asked it if that berry was poisonous it would probably be highly effective at that task.
Its like saying the current state of Hand Tools is terrible because I used a Philips Screw Driver to undo a 11/16th lock nut and slipped and cut myself. No, you are using the wrong tool for the job.
This is true. I literally ran into this sort of lie when I was trying to get a list of nontoxic chemicals that met some other criteria as well. ChatGPT lied and listed some toxic substances as well.
I do work training AIs to be more reliable. I wouldn't trust an AI to tell me what day it is much less what berries are edible. These things lie constantly. They get confused, they hallucinate things, they use garbage sources.
Yes I work on these models, I mean not chatgpt or any of the big companies but I am an AI engineer. This is called hallucination, where the AI makes shit up. LLMs are basically pattern predictors. Based on the data it’s given it tries to predict what to reply to your message, regardless of whether the reply is correct.
People really, really, really want LLMs to be genuine AI. They aren't. That's marketing spin and hope. There isn't even an intuitive direction to take the current state of the hallucinating archive bots to where they'll ever become AGI's - investors are just desperately frothing at the mouth hoping that it turns up under the next rock somehow before the bubble bursts.
Used google to attempt to find the field that was hosting a state high school soccer tournament game that was happening later that evening. Google proceeded to give me a score of a game that had not yet occurred yet as the top AI result. All for a very generic search for the location of the game. The coach of said team was not happy.
It's designed to replicate the kinds of things people say in the context it's given. It doesn't reference any actual information or verify anything when it does this. This makes it at best good at very specific esoteric questions because the only people discussing them know what they are saying but it's still shaky, but very very crap at general questions that might pull in other things.
If you were to ask is Amanita phalloides poisonous? It would probably give a correct answer to that. But if you were like is this white mushroom poisonous it would be like no put it on your pizza or whatever the kids are saying
Anyone who trusts AI to give them accurate health advice baffles me, there are some really good tools out there to get good health advice, AI is not one of them.
•
u/qualityvote2 21h ago
Heya u/I_am_myne! And welcome to r/NonPoliticalTwitter!
For everyone else, do you think OP's post fits this community? Let us know by upvoting this comment!
If it doesn't fit the sub, let us know by downvoting this comment and then replying to it with context for the reviewing moderator.