this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
177 points (91.5% liked)

Technology

72285 readers
2531 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
all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] postnataldrip@lemmy.world 47 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

I bet Video Chess is pretty shit as an LLM too.

Wish people would stop desperately looking for ways to write buzzword stories

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 12 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

TBF LLMs have no real purpose. It can generate word salads and make code snippets but its wildly unethical, and AI artworks 1/3rd shite and 2/3rds theft.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

AI artworks 1/3rd shite and 2/3rds theft.

To be fair, that could be said of most art.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I'm sorry your life is so joyless and devoid of enjoyable art but its absolutely not true for the vast majority of us.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 8 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

Oh, I enjoy lots of great art! But do you think I watch every film? Listen to every band? There's tons of shit out there!

Do you really believe, of all the songs that are written every day, that less than a third are crap? Even Taylor Swift doesn't publish everything she does. Sometimes you work on something for weeks and then end up tossing it in the bin. More often, you work on something for 30 minutes before deciding "I'm gonna start over, try something different". The majority of art is crap, but then you keep the stuff you think works.

And what's that expression, "good artists copy, great artists steal". I mean, that's a bit satirical, but the fact is, everything is derivative to some degree. It's not that there aren't new ideas, it's just that our new ideas are based on older ones. We stand on the shoulders of giants (or at least, on the shoulders of some people who came before us).

All I was really saying, was that the accusation "2 parts copying, 1 part crap", well honestly that's par for the course, that's how humans work. (And we do some great work that way).

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world -1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

I enjoy lots of great art! But do you think I watch every film? Listen to every band? There’s tons of shit out there!

You said regular art is 1/3 shite and 2/3 theft. Maybe math isn't your strong suit but that's 3/3 which is 100% so by claiming regular art is the same you're saying all art is either theft or shite.

It uh, it isn't.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

I did say that, because this isn't a pie chart situation, it's a Venn diagram situation.

For instance, AI art is 99% theft and 60% garbage. It's both because there's overlap.

Stolen and bad aren't opposites, why would this be a dichotomy?

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

That's fine but regular art isn't 2/3 theft either.

I do buy the 1/3 shite though. It may even be a bit higher than that. Though beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc.

It's a matter of taste for sure but I'd say AI art is >90% shite, 100% theft.

I don't like the glossy looking hyperreal shit it puts out at all.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -4 points 7 hours ago

Don't care didn't ask didn't read

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

It is entirely disingenuous to just pretend that LLMs are not being widely promoted, marketed, and discussed as AGI, as a superintelligence that people are familiar with from SciFi shows/movies, that is vastly more capable and knowledgeable than basically any single human.

Yes, people who actually understand tech understand that LLMs are not AGI, that your metaphor of wrong tool wrong job is apt.

... But seemingly about +90% of humanity, including the people who own and profit from LLMs, including all the other business owners/managers who just want to lower their employee headcount ... do not understand this, that an LLM is actually basically an extremely advanced text autocorrect system, that frequently and confidently lies, spits out nonsense, hallucinates, etc.

If you think it isn't reasonable to continuously point out that LLMs are not superintelligences, then you likely live in a bubble of tech nerds who probably still think their jobs or retirement are secure.

They're not.

If corpos keep smashing """AI""" into basically every industry to replace as many workers as possible... the economy will collapse, as capitalism doesn't work without consumers who have jobs, and an avalanche of errors will cascade and snowball through every system that replaces humans with them...

...and even if those two things were not broadly true...

...the amount of literal power/energy, clean water and financial capital that is required to run the whole economy on these services is wildly unsustainable, both short term economically, and medium term ecologically.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

That's true. But people pointing out that the whole attempt is absurd and senseless also reinforces the point that current AI isn't what companies tout it as.

then you likely live in a bubble of tech nerds

Well, we are on Lemmy...

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

so? It was never advertised as intelligent and capable of solving any task other than that one.

Meanwhile slop generators are capable of doing a lot of things and reasoning.

One claims to be good at chess. The other claims to be good at everything.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Tbf they don’t really claim that when you read the research, thats mostly media hype and ceo assholes spinning words.

Its good at lots specific tasks like rewriting emails and summarising gives text, short roleplay, boilerplate code. Some undiscovered uses.

Anthropic latest claims they would not hire their own ai because of how hard it failed at the test they give, They didnt do that expecting validation but to measure how far we are still off from ai doing meaningful full work.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Because the business leaders are famously diligent about putting aside the marketing push and reading into the nuance of the research instead.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 22 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

I have a better LLM benchmark:

"I have a priest, a child and a bag of candy and I have to take them to the other side of the river. I can only take one person/thing at a time. In what order should I take them?"

Claude Sonnet 4 decided that it's inappropriate and refused to answer. When I explain that the constraint is not to leave child alone with candy he provided a solution that leaves the child alone with candy.

Grok would provide a solution that doesn't leave the child alone with a priest but wouldn't explain why.

ChatGPT would say that "The priest can't be left alone with the child (or vice versa) for moral or safety concerns." directly and then provide wrong solution.

But yeah, they will know how to play chess...

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 15 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

The answer is simple, eat the candy with or without them, and take the kid across the river. Drive them home to their guardian. The priest is an adult, he can figure his own shit out.

[–] blargh513@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours ago

Perplexity says:

The priest cannot be left alone with the child (or there is some risk).

Not bad, and it solved it correctly.

[–] Pamasich@kbin.earth 3 points 5 hours ago

I just asked ChatGPT too (your exact prompt there) and it did give me the correct solution.

  1. Take the child over
  2. Go back alone
  3. Take the candy over
  4. Bring the child back
  5. Take the priest over
  6. Go back alone
  7. Take the child over again

It didn't comment on moral concerns, though it did applaud itself for keeping the priest and the child separated without elaborating on why.

[–] vegeta@lemmy.world 19 points 22 hours ago
[–] sundray@lemmus.org 13 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Language skill != intelligence

[–] orgrinrt@lemmy.world 10 points 16 hours ago

I am in this picture and I don’t like it

[–] BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Next up, we asked a shoe to write a haiku but it was beaten by a 30 year old HaikuMaker™®©.

[–] KingPorkChop@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I once spent 45 minutes trying to get ChatGPT to write a haiku. It couldn't do it. It explained what syllables were, and the rules for the syllables in a haiku, but it didn't understand it.

[–] vegeta@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

For S&G, Just asked it to do one:

collapsed inline media

[–] baatliwala@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

I really want to see an LLM vs LLM chess match. It'll be messy as hell.

It almost certainly have been trained partially on r/anarchychess so it'll probably try to play pop tart to king's bishop 3.

[–] DesolateMood@lemmy.zip 2 points 16 hours ago

I'm pretty sure that's been done? I remember seeing a while ago GothamChess made a video that had something to do with LLMs but I don't remember if it was human vs LLM or LLM vs LLM (or something else). I'll try to look for it in the morning

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

I remember seeing that, and early on it seemed fairly reasonable then it started materializing pieces out of nowhere and convincing each other that they had already lost.