This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Try this on your friends, make up an idiom, then walk up to them, say it without context, and then say "meaning?" and see how they respond.
Pretty sure most of mine will just make up a bullshit response nd go along with what I'm saying unless I give them more context.
There are genuinely interesting limitations to LLMs and the newer reasoning models, and I find it interesting to see what we can learn from them, this is just ham fisted robo gotcha journalism.
So, you have friends who are as stupid as an AI. Got it. What's your point?
it highlights the fact that these LLMs refuse to say "I don't know", which essentially means we cannot rely on them for any factual reporting.
But a) they don't refuse, most will tell you if you prompt them well them and b) you cannot rely on them as the sole source of truth but an information machine can still be useful if it's right most of the time.
This also works with asking it "why?" About random facts you make up.
Honestly, I’m kind of impressed it’s able to analyze seemingly random phrases like that. It means its thinking and not just regurgitating facts. Because someday, such a phrase could exist in the future and AI wouldn’t need to wait for it to become mainstream.
It's not thinking. It's just spicy autocomplete; having ingested most of the web, it "knows" that what follows a question about the meaning of a phrase is usually the definition and etymology of that phrase; there aren't many examples online of anyone asking for the definition of a phrase and being told "that doesn't exist, it's not a real thing." So it does some frequency analysis (actually it's probably more correct to say that it is frequency analysis) and decides what the most likely words to come after your question are, based on everything it's been trained on.
But it doesn't actually know or think anything. It just keeps giving you the next expected word until it meets its parameters.
One arm hair in the hand is better than two in the bush
I for one will not be putting any gibberish into Google's AI for any reason. I don't find it fun. I find it annoying and have taken steps to avoid it completely on purpose. I don't understand these articles that want to throw shade at AI LLM's by suggesting their viewers go use the LLM's which only helps the companies that own the LLM's.
Like. Yes. We have established that LLM's will give misinformation and create slop because all their data sets are tainted. Do we need to continue to further this nonsense?
