You must log in or register to comment.
Doc: That’s an interesting name, Mr…
Fletch: Babar.
Doc: Is that with one B or two?
Fletch: One. B-A-B-A-R.
Doc: That’s two.
Fletch: Yeah, but not right next to each other, that’s what I thought you meant.
Doc: Isn’t there a children’s book about an elephant named Babar.
Fletch: Ha, ha, ha. I wouldn’t know. I don’t have any.
Doc: No children?
Fletch: No elephant books.
You asked a stupid question and got a stupid response, seems fine to me.
“strawbery” has 2 R’s in it while “strawberry” has 3.
Fucking AI can’t even count.
Yes, nobody asking that question is wonderring about the “straw” part of the word. They’re asking, is the “berry” part one, or two "r"s
“My hammer is not well suited to cut vegetables” 🤷
There is so much to say about AI, can we move on from “it can’t count letters and do math” ?
But the problem is more “my do it all tool randomly fails at arbitrary tasks in an unpredictable fashion” making it hard to trust as a tool in any circumstances.
it would be like complaining that a water balloon isn’t useful because it isn’t accurate. LLMs are good at approximating language, numbers are too specific and have more objective answers.
I’ve already had more than one conversation where people quote AI as if it were a source, like quoting google as a source. When I showed them how it can sometimes lie and explain it’s not a primary source for anything I just get that blank stare like I have two heads.
I think I have seen this exact post word for word fifty times in the last year.
This is a bad example… If I ask a friend "is strawberry spelled with one or two r’s"they would think I’m asking about the last part of the word.
The question seems to be specifically made to trip up LLMs. I’ve never heard anyone ask how many of a certain letter is in a word. I’ve heard people ask how you spell a word and if it’s with one or two of a specific letter though.
If you think of LLMs as something with actual intelligence you’re going to be very unimpressed… It’s just a model to predict the next word.
If you think of LLMs as something with actual intelligence you’re going to be very unimpressed
Artificial sugar is still sugar.
Artificial intelligence implies there is intelligence in some shape or form.
Thats because it wasnt originally called AI. It was called an LLM. Techbros trying to sell it and articles wanting to fan the flames started called it AI and eventually it became common dialect. No one in the field seriously calls it AI, they generally save that terms to refer to general AI or at least narrow ai. Of which an llm is neither.
LLM is a type of a machine learning model, which is a type of artificial intelligence.
Saying LLMs aren’t AI is just the AI Effect in action.
Artificial sugar is still sugar.
Because it contains sucrose, fructose or glucose? Because it metabolises the same and matches the glycemic index of sugar?
Because those are all wrong. What’s your criteria?
In this example a sugar is something that is sweet.
Another example is artificial flavours still being a flavour.
Or like artificial light being in fact light.
If you think of LLMs as something with actual intelligence you’re going to be very unimpressed… It’s just a model to predict the next word.
This is exactly the problem, though. They don’t have “intelligence” or any actual reasoning, yet they are constantly being used in situations that require reasoning.
What situations are you thinking of that requires reasoning?
I’ve used LLMs to create software i needed but couldn’t find online.
Creating software is a great example, actually. Coding absolutely requires reasoning. I’ve tried using code-focused LLMs to write blocks of code, or even some basic YAML files, but the output is often unusable.
It rarely makes syntax errors, but it will do things like reference libraries that haven’t been imported or hallucinate functions that don’t exist. It also constantly misunderstands the assignment and creates something that technically works but doesn’t accomplish the intended task.
I think coding is one of the areas where LLMs are most useful for private individuals at this point in time.
It’s not yet at the point where you just give it a prompt and it spits out flawless code.
For someone like me that are decent with computers but have little to no coding experience it’s an absolutely amazing tool/teacher.
Because you’re using it wrong. It’s good for generative text and chains of thought, not symbolic calculations including math or linguistics
Because you’re using it wrong.
No, I think you mean to say it’s because you’re using it for the wrong use case.
Well this tool has been marketed as if it would handle such use cases.
I don’t think I’ve actually seen any AI marketing that was honest about what it can do.
I personally think image recognition is the best use case as it pretty much does what it promises.
Really? AI has been marketed as being able to count the r’s in “strawberry?” Please link to this ad.
“You’re holding it wrong”
This but actually. Don’t use an LLM to do things LLMs are known to not be good at. As tools various companies would do good to list out specifically what they’re bad at to eliminate requiring background knowledge before even using them, not unlike needing to somehow know that one corner of those old iPhones was an antenna and to not bridge it.
Yup, the problem with that iPhone (4?) wasn’t that it sucked, but that it had limitations. You could just put a case on it and the problem goes away.
LLMs are pretty good at a number of tasks, and they’re also pretty bad at a number of tasks. They’re pretty good at summarizing, but don’t trust the summary to be accurate, just to give you a decent idea of what something is about. They’re pretty good at generating code, just don’t trust the code to be perfect.
You wouldn’t use a chainsaw to build a table, but it’s pretty good at making big things into small things, and cleaning up the details later with a more refined tool is the way to go.
They’re pretty good at summarizing, but don’t trust the summary to be accurate, just to give you a decent idea of what something is about.
That is called being terrible at summarizing.
if you want to find a few articles out of a few hundred that are about the benefits of nuclear weapons or other controversial topics that have significant literature on them it can be helpful to eliminate 90% that probably aren’t what I’m looking for.
Or you might eliminate some that are what you are looking for because the summaries are inaccurate.
Guess it depends on whether an unreliable system is still better than being overwhelmed with choices.
Give me an example of how you use it.
Writing customer/company-wide emails is a good example. “Make this sound better: we’re aware of the outage at Site A, we are working as quick as possible to get things back online”
Dumbing down technical information “word this so a non-technical person can understand: our DHCP scope filled up and there were no more addresses available for Site A, which caused the temporary outage for some users”
Another is feeding it an article and asking for a summary, https://hackingne.ws/ does that for its Bsky posts.
Coding is another good example, “write me a Python script that moves all files in /mydir to /newdir”
Asking for it to summarize a theory or protocol, “explain to me why RIP was replaced with RIPv2, and what problems people have had since with RIPv2”
