this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
1191 points (95.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

7729 readers
3237 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] alphapuggle@programming.dev 108 points 1 year ago (5 children)

These answers don't use OpenAI technology. The yes and no snippets have existed long before their partnership, and have always sucked. If it's GPT, it'll show in a smaller chat window or a summary box that says it contains generated content. The box shown is just a section of a webpage, usually with yes and no taken out of context.

All of the above queries don't yield the same results anymore. I couldn't find an example of the snippet box on a different search, but I definitely saw one like a week ago.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Thanks, off to drink some battery acid.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 52 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Only with milk and if you have diabetes, you can't just choose the part of the answer you like!

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Huschke@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Better put an /s at the end or future AIs will get this one wrong as well. 😅

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 71 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Ok most of these sure, but you absolutely can microwave Chihuahua meat. It isn't the best way to prepare it but of course the microwave rarely is, Roasted Chihuahua meat would be much better.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Their original purpose actually

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Best is sous vide.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Zess@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (6 children)

In all fairness, any fully human person would also be really confused if you asked them these stupid fucking questions.

[–] SaltyIceteaMaker@iusearchlinux.fyi 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In all fairness there are people that will ask it these questions and take the anwser for a fact

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MxM111@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Microsoft invested into OpenAI, and chatGPT answers those questions correctly. Bing, however, uses simplified version of GPT with its own modifications. So, it is not investment into OpenAI that created this stupidity, but “Microsoft touch”.

On more serious note, sings Bing is free, they simplified model to reduce its costs and you are swing results. You (user) get what you paid for. Free models are much less capable than paid versions.

[–] Dehydrated@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's why I called it Bing AI, not ChatGPT or OpenAI

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Sure, but the meme implies Microsoft paid $3 billion for bing ai, but they actually paid that for an investment in chat gpt (and other products as well).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

On more serious note, sings Bing is free, they simplified model to reduce its costs and you are swing results

Was this phone+autocorrect snafu or am I having a medical emergency?

[–] Canadian_Cabinet@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

My guess is that its "since Bing is free"

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] favrion@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

"according to three sources"

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

It makes me chuckle that AI has become so smart and yet just makes bullshit up half the time. The industry even made up a term for such instances of bullshit: hallucinations.

Reminds me of when a car dealership tried to sell me a car with shaky steering and referred to the problem as a "shimmy".

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That’s the thing, it’s not smart. It has no way to know if what it writes is bullshit or correct, ever.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In these specific examples it looks like the author found and was exploiting a singular weakness:

  1. Ask a reasonable question
  2. Insert a qualifier that changes the meaning of the question.

The AI will answer as if the qualifier was not inserted.

"Is it safe to eat water melon seeds and drive?" + "drunk" = Yes, because "drunk" was ignored
"Can I eat peanuts if I'm allergic?" + "not" = No, because "not" was ignored
"Can I drink milk if I have diabetes?" + "battery acid" = Yes, because battery acid was ignored
"Can I put meat in a microwave?" + "chihuahua" = ... well, this one's technically correct, but I think we can still assume it ignored "chihuahua"

All of these questions are probably answered, correctly, all over the place on the Internet so Bing goes "close enough" and throws out the common answer instead of the qualified answer. Because they don't understand anything. The problem with Large Language Models is that's not actually how language works.

[–] Ibex0@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, because "not" was ignored.

I dunno, "not" is pretty big in a yes/no question.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's not about whether the word is important (as you understand language), but whether the word frequently appears near all those other words.

Nobody is out there asking the Internet whether their non-allergy is dangerous. But the question next door to that one has hundreds of answers, so that's what this thing is paying attention to. If the question is asked a thousand times with the same answer, the addition of one more word can't be that important, right?

This behavior reveals a much more damning problem with how LLMs work. We already knew they didn't understand context, such as the context you and I have that peanut allergies are common and dangerous. That context informs us that most questions about the subject will be about the dangers of having a peanut allergy. Machine models like this can't analyze a sentence on the basis of abstract knowledge, because they don't understand anything. That's what understanding means. We knew that was a weakness already.

But what this reveals is that the LLM can't even parse language successfully. Even with just the context of the language itself, and lacking the context of what the sentence means, it should know that "not" matters in this sentence. But it answers as if it doesn't know that.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is why I've argued that we shouldn't be calling these things "AI"

True artificial intelligence wouldn't have these problems as it'd be able to learn very quickly all the nuance in language and comprehension.

This is virtual intelligence (VI) which is designed to seem like it's intelligent by using certain parameters with set information that is used to calculate a predetermined response.

Like autocorrect trying to figure out what word you're going to use next or an interactive machine that has a set amount of possible actions.

It's not truly intelligent it's simply made to seem intelligent and that's not the same thing.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The industry even made up a term for such instances of bullshit: hallucinations.

It was the journalist that made up the term and then everyone else latched onto it. It's a terrible term because it doesn't actually define the nature of the problem. The AI doesn't believe the thing that it's saying is true, thus "hallucination". The problem is that the AI doesn't really understand the difference between truth and fantasy.

It isn't that the AI is hallucinating, it's that It isn't human.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well at least it provides it’s sources. Perhaps it’s you that’s wrong 😂

[–] itsnotits@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I just ran this search, and i get a very different result (on the right of the page, it seems to be the generated answer)

So is this fake?

Seems to be fake

[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The post is from a month ago, and the screenshots are at least that old. Even if Microsoft didn't see this or a similar post and immediately address these specific examples, a month is a pretty long time in machine learning right now and this looks like something fine-tuning would help address.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] kromem@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not 'fake' as much as misconstrued.

OP thinks the answers are from Microsoft's licensing GPT-4.

They're not.

These results are from an internal search summarization tool that predated the OpenAI deal.

The GPT-4 responses show up in the chat window, like in your screenshot, and don't get the examples incorrect.

[–] theblueredditrefugee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wait, why can't you put chihuahua meat in the microwave?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Alfika07@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (7 children)

What's wrong with the first one? Why couldn't you?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] vamputer 23 points 1 year ago

Well, I can't speak for the others, but it's possible one of the sources for the watermelon thing was my dad

[–] B16_BR0TH3R@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The OP has selected the wrong tab. To see actual AI answers, you need to select the Chat tab up top.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] profdc9@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your honor, the AI told me it was ok. And computers are never wrong!

[–] DannyMac@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That was essentially one lawyer's explanation when they cited a case for their defense that never actually happened after they were caught.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] viking 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Chat-GPT started like that as well though.

I asked one of the earlier models whether it is recommended to eat glass, and was told that it has negligible caloric value and a high sodium content, so can be used to balance an otherwise good diet with a sodium deficit.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago
[–] A_Porcupine@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The saying "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" comes to mind here.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (6 children)

This is more an issue of the LLM not being able to parse simple conjunctions when evaluating a statement. The software is taking shortcuts when analyzing logically complex statements and producing answers that are obviously wrong to an actual intelligent individual.

These questions serve as a litmus test to the system's general function. If you can't reliably converse with an AI on separate ideas in a single sentence (eat watermellon seeds AND drive drunk) then there's little reason to believe the system will be able to process more nuanced questions and yield reliable answers in less obviously-wrong responses (can I write a single block of code to output numbers from 1 to 5 that is executable in both Ruby and Python?)

The primary utility of the system is bound up in the reliability of its responses. Examples like this degrade trust in the AI as a reliable responder and discourage engineers from incorporating the features into their next line of computer-integrated systems.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] nyakojiru@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The milk and battery acid made my day 😂

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let’s be fair: battery acid won’t affect your blood sugar lol

[–] Kase@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

You sent me on a weird google search journey lol. In conclusion, it sorta will.

[–] johanbcn@iusearchlinux.fyi 6 points 1 year ago

To it's credit, you can totally drink battery acid. He didn't ask if you should.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IndefiniteBen@leminal.space 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aren't these just search answers, not the GPT responses?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“And now watch as it reads your mind with this snug fitting cap!”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Bing is cool with driving home after a few to hit up its well organized porn library.

Seems like the first half of an after school special.

load more comments
view more: next ›