this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
465 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

68066 readers
3546 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 172 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's because this isn't something coming from the AI itself. All the people blaming the AI or calling this a "hallucination" are misunderstanding the cause of the glue pizza thing.

The search result included a web page that suggested using glue. The AI was then told "write a summary of this search result", which it then correctly did.

Gemini operating on its own doesn't have that search result to go on, so no mention of glue.

[–] [email protected] 72 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not quite, it is an intelligent summary. More advanced models would realize that is bad advice and not give it. However for search results, google uses a lightweight, dumber model (flash) which does not realize this.

I tested with rock example, albiet on a different search engine (kagi). The base model gave the same answer as google (ironically based on articles about google's bad results, it seems it was too dumb to realize that the quotations in the articles were examples of bad results, not actual facts), but the more advanced model understood and explained how the bad advice had been spreading around and you should not follow it.

It isn't a hallucination though, you're right about that

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

the more advanced model

Can you explain what this is?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There are 3 options. You can pick 2.

  1. Good
  2. Cheap
  3. Fast

Google, as with most businesses, chose option 2 and 3.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I understand this, the user had said it like you can just switch to "advanced AI mode" at will, which I'm curious about.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah it's called the "research assistant" I think. Uses GPT4-o atm.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 59 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Big AI trying very hard to hide the truth about glue in pizza.

[–] Anyolduser 15 points 10 months ago

Fucksmith showed us the way!

[–] [email protected] 54 points 10 months ago

Or they made sure to fix it ASAP like Google did too.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You just haven’t gaslighted your ai into saying the glue thing. If you keep trying by saying things like “what about non-toxic glue” or “aren’t there glues designed for humans” the ai will finally give in and recommend the glue. Don’t give up. Glue is good for us.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago

Glue is what keeps us together!

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago

This post is sponsored by big glue.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 10 months ago

Well, they manually removed that one. But there are much better ones:

[–] [email protected] 31 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I imagine Google was quick to update the model to not recommend glue. It was going viral.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Main issue is Gemini traditionally uses it's training data and the version answering your search is summarising search results, which can vary in quality and since it's just a predictive text tree it can't really fact check.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah when you use Gemini, it seems like sometimes it’ll just answer based on its training, and sometimes it’ll cite some source after a search, but it seems like you can’t control that. It’s not like Bing that will always summarize and link where it got that information from.

I also think Gemini probably uses some sort of knowledge graph under the hoods, because it has some very up to date information sometimes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

I think copilot is way more usable than this hallucination google AI…

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You can't just "update" models to not say a certain thing with pinpoint accuracy like that. Which one of the reasons why it's so challenging to make AI not misbehave.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 months ago

Absolutely not! You should use something safe for consumption, like bubble gum.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

Gluegle Search

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

it has been quite broken for some time

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago

This isn't ai...

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm almost sure that they use the same model for Gemini and for the A"I" answers, so patching the "put glue on pizza" answer for one also patches it for another.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Nope it’s because on Search it was summarizing the first results, the “pure Gemini” isn’t doing a search at that time, it’s just answering based on what it knows.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

Ask it five times if it is sure. You can usually get it to say outrageous things this way

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

These are statistical models, meaning that you'll get a different answer each time, also different answers based on context.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Not exactly. The answers would be exactly the same given the exact same inputs if they didn't intentionally and purposefully inject some random jitter into the algorithm each time specifically to avoid getting the same answer each time

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It’s not just random jitter, it also likely adds context, including the device you’re using, other recent queries, and your relative location (like what state you’re in).

I don’t work for Google, but I am somewhat close to a major AI product, and it’s pretty much the industry standard to give some contextual info to the model in addition to your query. It’s also generally not “one model”, but a set of models run in sequence— with the LLM (think chatGPT) only employed at the end to generate a paragraph from a conclusion and evidence found by a previous model.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

I consider "context", even if not added explicitly by the user, to be part of the input.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That jitter is automatically present because different people will get different search results, so it's not really intentional or purposeful

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes it is intentional.

Some interferences even expose a way to set the "temperature" - higher values of that mean more randomized (feels creative) output, lower values mean less randomness. A temperature of 0 will make the model deterministic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

even at 0 temperature the model will not be deterministic, because it depends on the seed used as well as things like numerical noise.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah no, that's not how this works.

Where in the process does that seed play a role and what do you even mean with numerical noise?

Edit: I feel like I should add that I am very interested in learning more. If you can provide me with any sources to show that GPTs are inherently random I am happy to eat my own hat.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/docs/api.md#request-reproducible-outputs

LLMs are prompted with a seed. If you change the seed you get a different answer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Addendum:

The docs say

For reproducible outputs, set temperature to 0 and seed to a number:

But what they should say is

For reproducible outputs, set temperature to 0 or seed to a number:

Easy mistake to make

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I appreciate the constructive comment.

Unfortunately the API docs are incomplete (insert obi wan meme here). The seed value is both optional and irrelevant when setting the temperature to 0. I just tested it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Ive been experimenting with using search as a tool and the capability write and execute code for calculations. https://github.com/muntedcrocodile/Sydney

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Professional photographers use needles to keep things from sliding around.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Y'all losing your mind intentionally misunderstanding what happened with the glue. Y'all are becoming anti ai lemons just looking for rage bait.

The AI doesn't need to be perfect. Just better than the average person. That why the shitty Tesla said driving has such good accident rates despite the fuck ups everyone loves to rage about in the news cycle.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The average person isn't going to recommend putting glue in pizza.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

the avreage person also isn't as convincing as a bot we're told is the peak of computer intelligence