365
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
365 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
69391 readers
2552 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
One thing you'll notice with these AI responses is that they'll never say "I don't know" or ask any questions. If it doesn't know it will just make something up.
Sounds like a lot of people I know.
It was trained in the internet. Everybody else is wrong there.
Do you listen to those people or ask them question about things you want to learn more about?
That’s because AI doesn’t know anything. All they do is make stuff up. This is called bullshitting and lots of people do it, even as a deliberate pastime. There was even a fantastic Star Trek TNG episode where Data learned to do it!
The key to bullshitting is to never look back. Just keep going forward! Constantly constructing sentences from the raw material of thought. Knowledge is something else entirely: justified true belief. It’s not sufficient to merely believe things, we need to have some justification (however flimsy). This means that true knowledge isn’t merely a feature of our brains, it includes a causal relation between ourselves and the world, however distant that may be.
A large language model at best could be said to have a lot of beliefs but zero justification. After all, no one has vetted the gargantuan training sets that go into an LLM to make sure only facts are incorporated into the model. Thus the only indicator of trustworthiness of a fact is that it’s repeated many times and in many different places in the training set. But that’s no help for obscure facts or widespread myths!
60fps Next Generation makes my brain hurt. It’s like I’m watching a soap opera.
Just gonna leave this here!
And it’s easy to figure out why or at least I believe it is.
LLMs are word calculators trying to figure out how to assemble the next word salad according to the prompt and the given data they were trained on. And that’s the thing. Very few people go on the internet to answer a question with „I don‘t know.“ (Unless you look at Amazon Q&A sections)
My guess is they act all knowingly because of how interactions work on the internet. Plus they can‘t tell fact from fiction to begin with and would just randomly say they don‘t know if you tried to train them on that I guess.
The AI gets trained by a point System. Good answers are lots of points. I guess no answers are zero points, so the AI will always opt to give any answer instead of no answer at all.
collapsed inline media
collapsed inline media
Your search - "yellow is a true badger" meaning - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try fewer keywords.
definition of saying yellow is a true badger
The saying "yellow is a true badger" is not a standard or recognized idiom. The phrase "that's the badger" (or similar variations) is a British idiom meaning "that's exactly what I was looking for" or "that's the right thing". The term "yellow" is often used to describe someone who is cowardly. Therefore, there's no established meaning or relationship between "yellow" and "true badger" in the way the phrase "that's the badger" is used.
still didn't work.
That was my point. In think you are reading two comments into one.
And it's by design. Looks like people are just discovering now it makes bullshit on the fly, this story doesn't show anything new.
As an Autist, I find it amazing that... after a lifetime of being compared to a robot, an android, a computer...
When humanity actually does manage to get around to creating """AI"""... the AI fundamentally acts nothing like the general stereotype of fictional AIs, as similar to how an Autistic mind tends to evaluate information...
No, no, instead, it acts like an Allistic, Neurotypical person, who just confidently asserts and assumes things that it basically pulls out of its ass, often never takes any time to consider its own limitations as it pertains to correctly assessing context, domain specific meanings, more gramatically complex and ambiguous phrases ... essentially never asks for clarifications, never seeks out addtional relevant information to give an actually useful and functional reply to an overly broad or vague question...
Nope, just barrels forward assuming its subjective interpretation of what you've said is the only objectively correct one, spouts out pithy nonsense... and then if you actually progress further and attempt to clarify what you actually meant, or ask it questions about itself and its own previous statements... it will gaslight the fuck out of you, even though its own contradictory / overconfident / unqualified hyperbolic statements are plainly evident, in text.
... Because it legitimately is not even aware that it is making subjective assumptions all over the place, all the time.
Anyway...
collapsed inline media
Back to 'Autistic Mode' for Mr. sp3ctr4l.
You clearly haven't experimented with AI much. If you ask most models a question that doesn't have an answer, they will respond that they don't know the answer, before giving very reasonable hypotheses. This has been the case for well over a year.
You clearly haven't experimented with AI much in a work environment. When asked to do specific things that you are not sure if are possible it will 100% ignore part of your input and always give you a positive response at first.
"How can I automate outlook 2020 to do X?"
'You do XYZ'
me, after looking it up"that's only possible in older versions"
'You are totally right, you do IJK'
"that doesn't achieve what i asked"
'Correct, you can't do it.'
And don't get me started on APIs of actual frameworks... I've wished to punch it hard when dealing with react or spark. Luckily I usually know my stuff and only use it to find a quick example of something that I test locally before implementing if 5 mins of googling didn't give me the baseline, but the amount of colleagues that not only blindly copy code but argue with my reasoning saying "chatgpt says so" is fucking crazy.
When chatgpt says something I know is incorrect I ask for sources and there's fucking none. Because it not possible my dude.
And this is the best case scenario. Most of the time it will be:
Useless shit you can't trust.
I'd prefer if I didn't have to iterate twice...