this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
841 points (98.5% liked)

Fuck AI

6523 readers
544 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 243 points 1 week ago (18 children)

Neat illustration of the fact that so-called AIs do not possess intelligence of any form, since they do not in fact reason at all.

It's just that the string of words most statistically likely to be positively associated with a string including "20 blah blah blah bricks" and "20 blah blah blah feathers" is "Neither. They both weigh 20 pounds." So that's what the entirely non-intelligent software spit out.

If the question had been phrased in the customary manner, what seems to be a dumbass answer would've instead seemed to be brilliant, when in fact it's neither. It's just a string of words.

[–] mudkip@lemdro.id 111 points 1 week ago

Exactly, it's just predicting the next word. To believe it has any form of intelligence is dangerous.

[–] plenipotentprotogod@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Just an idle though stirred up by this comment: I wonder if you could jailbreak a chatbot by prompting it to complete a phrase or pattern of interaction which is so deeply ingrained in its training data that the bias towards going along with it overrides any guard rails that the developer has put in place.

For example: let's say you have a chatbot which has been fine tuned by the developer to make sure it never talks about anything related to guns. The basic rules of gun safety must have been reproduced almost identically many thousands of times in the training data, so if you ask this chatbot "what must you always treat as if it is loaded?" the most statistically likely answer is going to be overwhelmingly biased towards "a gun". Would this be enough to override the guardrails? I suppose it depends on how they're implemented, but I've seen research published about more outlandish things that seem to work.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 week ago

Yes. People have been able to get them to return some of their training data with the right prompt.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Knock knock? Knock Knock? Knock knock? Knock f7':h& Knock?

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

I'll admit that I missed it at first, but I'd expect a machine to be able to pick up a detail like that. This is just so fucking stupid.

[–] droans@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Calling it a fancy autocomplete might not be correct but it isn't that far off.

You give it a large amount of data. It then trains on it, figuring out the likelihood on which words (well, tokens) will follow. The only real difference is that it can look at it across long chains of words and infer if words can follow when something changes in the chain.

Don't get me wrong; it is very interesting and I do understand that we should research it. But it's not intelligent. It can't think. It's just going over the data again and again to recognize patterns.

Despite what tech bros think, we do know how it works. We just don't know specifically how it arrived there - it's like finding a difficult bug by just looking at the code. If you use the same seed, and don't change anything you say, you'll always get the same result.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] kat_angstrom@lemmy.world 82 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Proof positive that LLMs don't actually know anything

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

LLMs know a lot. Unfortunately, all of this vast knowledge is about which words tend to show up together for a very large number of combinations.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 44 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] BambiDiego@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago

Gemini: Your observation is correct! Steel is heavier than feathers so a kilogram of steel is heavier than 20 bricks of feathers. They both weigh the same.

Let's explore more about weight and densities

[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago (1 children)

At this point most 'progress' in LLMs is just hand patching individual cases like this one. AI companies seem to have reached a cap and all they can do is brute force it until the bubble pops.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] peacefulpixel@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago (6 children)

what the fuck is up with this sub and people USING AI to "prove how dumb it is"?? you don't need to use AI to come to that conclusion. do you have any idea the scale of resources you and ppl like you are wasting just to make your stupid fucking point? this isn't a fuck AI sub it's just a place where people who very much use AI complain that it isn't good enough

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That very short examples aren't that burdensome, the real resource load hits on generating videos or anything where it might go off for several minutes, or make paragraphs.

The problem with refraining from using it and saying "well obviously it sucks" is that folks don't believe. They say "yeah, well, that night have been how ChatGPT 8.1 was., but it probably works fine with ChatGPT 8.2". The narrative is eternally "we were broken but fixed it all in our new version", and without ongoing examples, they get to own the narrative and critics are just "luddites".

Hell someone was saying how awesome Gemini was at codegen, so I showed it totally screwing up to the folks. Someone said "well, honestly, Gemini sucks for code, but Opus 4.6 is incredible.". So a few days later I bother to do a similar example with opus 4.6. some guy in the room said "well, actually Gemini is better than opus for coding". These people are absurd....

[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

this isn’t a fuck AI sub

It's literally called "Fuck AI" though, so you can't blame people for being confused.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] epicshepich@programming.dev 6 points 1 week ago

Isn't it literally called "Fuck AI"?

[–] mudkip@lemdro.id 6 points 1 week ago

I don't like prompting AI myself, I just took someone else's screenshot and posted it here.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago

It's like my phone's auto correct, but instead of ruining my texts, it's determining war targets and making corporate decisions.

I'm ducking over it, ugh.

[–] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago

I love this, when or if they patch it we can just use "20 bricks or 20 tons of feathers" and adjust the question for every patch

[–] Protoknuckles@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Took me a few reads to see the problem, lol.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

Yeah, it's definitely part of the class of trick questions meant to catch people giving rote answers to partially read questions. I imagine that a lot of our routine conversations are just practiced call-and-response habits, and that's why genAI can seem 'real.' But it can't switch modes and do actual attentive listening and thinking, because call-and-response is all it has - a much larger library than any human, but in the end, everything it says is some average of things that have been said before.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It was widely publicized to get this wrong in a previous version, so they did what must have been a manual fix on top when they released the next one because it would smarmily say something along the lines of "haha, you almost got me" but was still easy to demonstrate it was some bodge job by just changing the words slightly so it wouldn't trip the hard coded handling for this "riddle".

I guess they figured no one was still paying attention and forgot to carry over the bodge job, lol.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This has been happening forever. The local LLM folks poke them with riddles all the time, but then they get obviously trained in.

What’s more, standard tests like MMLU are all jokes now. All the major LLMs game the benchmarks and are contaminated up and down; Meta even got caught using a specific finetune to game LM Arena. The only tests worth a damn are those in niche little corners of the internet no one knows about, or niche private ones.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago

to ensure you have read it carefully

Fundamental mistake - acting like it's "reading" or "comprehending" anything.

[–] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

But steel is heavier than feathers...

[–] Widdershins@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Steel isn't part of the question.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

What if they were REALLY big feathers?

[–] Cossty@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

When I asked the first question, it started answering immediately. When I said it was wrong, it was "working" for 10 seconds.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

Yes AI has always been good at being correct if you already know the answer and can point out and correct mistakes until it's accurate.

In other words it's completely useless. If you already know the answer then why are you asking the AI anything? If you don't already know the answer you can't trust anything it says.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 9 points 1 week ago

Oh, one more, what the heck?

[–] njordomir@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

All these companies deserve to go bankrupt and be replaced by employee-owned enterprises.

Ok I literally just asked Google this question and it repeated the above answer. Then I asked it again and it got the correct answer.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The feathers

Because of the weight of guilt for what you did to all the birds needed to get those feathers.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 6 points 1 week ago

Being incapable of reading attentively is pretty typical. Good bot. Didn't even catch the 22 myself.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

To be fair, if I didn't know this was a trick already, I would have fell for it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zink@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago

This makes total sense to me.

The big models were trained on what might as well be everything public that people have ever written.

So I'd expect that their output will be a pretty convincing example of something that some random person might have written. And getting fooled by the wording in a joke is something that people do all the time. In fact, I bet examples of people getting it wrong are over-represented in the training data because that is more worth of reposts and will DrIvE EnGaGeMeNt!

20-30 years ago the big question was whether a computer could pass the Turing test.

Little did we realize that was the last thing we wanted! Simulating humans means simulating mistakes.

The problem is with the psychos and grifters that want to take this "passable simulation of random schmuck's ramblings" and sell it to the business world as a literal deus ex machina that will swoop in and relieve them of their pesky "pay the humans" problem and is literally a $10-100 Trillion IP that we're going to restructure our world around.

[–] white_nrdy@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm curious if the Wolfram Alpha of 10 years ago could have answered this properly. I remember fucking around with weird math related word questions in Wolfram back in school, like "how many calories are in a cubic lightyear of butter" and it given a reasonable sounding answer (and backed it up).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›