You must log in or register to comment.
A great deal of energy, hardware and software went into providing that wrong answer.
We should leave AI to the realm of producing fringe/impossible porn, like it was meant for and like what everyone actually wants from it. All this “search engine” stuff is just cover like when you buy some non-lube products like groceries along with the tube of astroglide at 1:00 AM.
You. I like you.
If you read the whole thing, it’s not wrong. It just highlighted a part that is wrong when taken out of context
What you’re referring to as “highlighting” here is what most of us consider the thing “answering the question”.
“Where are you from?”
“Connecticut. I was born and raised in Utah …”
That first sentence is the answer to the question.
AI is statistically generated word salad.
So is human speech
No it fucking isn’t lol
Like every tool, it has its uses…but they are not those being advertised. LLMs are great for things where mistakes don’t detract from the result (or even add to it) like brainstorming, art, music, disinformation…all that good stuff.
Yeah that’s why it would be very nice if they would stop integrating it into fucking search engines.
They wanna fucking integrate it in everything, dumbfucks. This is why meritocracy is dead, the people with the means to determine where we go as a society are “number go up” people.
The 4th dimension shortcut
Forgive Bing. It’s American and doesn’t know the metric system.
Well then, what are we waiting for? Let’s go visit Alpha Centauri!
This sounds like an opportunity for a light jog!
google > bing
So really no excuse when the vogons come
So close, yet so far…as once Elvis said
Like, are we sure? Has someone actually checked?
Yeah, some nerds won’t shut up about their fake numbers
How have scientists not figured out interstellar travel yet??? It’s really right in front of us!
They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out.
For certain purposes, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometres away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?
I thought this was fake or a bad result or something, but totally just duplicated it. Wow.
If you read the block of text…. It doesn’t make sense either.
I 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.
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.
It’s in the quote that they scaled it.
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.
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.
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?
Then go ahead and put “science questions” into one of the areas that you don’t use LLMs for. That doesn’t make them useless in general.
I would say that a more precise and specific restriction would be “they’re not good at questions involving numbers.” That’s narrower than “science questions” in general, they’re still pretty good at dealing with the concepts involved. LLMs aren’t good at math so don’t use them for math.
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.
Your comment is simply counterfactual. I do indeed find LLMs to be useful. Saying “no you don’t!” Is frankly ridiculous.
I’m a computer programmer. Not directly experienced with LLMs themselves, but I understand the technology around them and have written program that make use of them. I know what their capabilities and limitations are.
Your claim that it’s capable of doing what it claims isn’t just false.
It’s an egregious, massively harmful lie, and repeating it is always extremely malicious and inexcusable behavior.
Have you gone 13.6 km up there to verify it’s not there?
13.6km is 44,619ft.
So nearly every time one flies commercial, yes, since cruising altitude is between 30,000 and 40,000 feet. I think a large triple-star system would be quite visible at that point.
I imagine if you were 13.6 km from a star you would either burn up or fall into the star’s gravity well.
