• sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I just tried out Gemini.

    I asked it several questions in the form of ‘are there any things of category x which also are in category y?’ type questions.

    It would often confidently reply ‘No, here’s a summary of things that meet all your conditions to fall into category x, but sadly none also fall into category y’.

    Then I would reply, ‘wait, you don’t know about thing gamma, which does fall into both x and y?’

    To which it would reply ‘Wow, you’re right! It turns out gamma does fall into x and y’ and then give a bit of a description of how/why that is the case.

    After that, I would say ‘… so you… lied to me. ok. well anyway, please further describe thing gamma that you previously said you did not know about, but now say that you do know about.’

    And that is where it gets … fun?

    It always starts with an apology template.

    Then, if its some kind of topic that has almost certainly been manually dissuaded from talking about, it then lies again and says ‘actually, I do not know about thing gamma, even though I just told you I did’.

    If it is not a topic that it has been manually dissuaded from talking about, it does the apology template and then also further summarizes thing gamma.

    I asked it ‘do you write code?’ and it gave a moderately lengthy explanation of how it is comprised of code, but does not write its own code.

    Cool, not really what I asked. Then command ‘write an implementation of bogo sort in python 3.’

    … and then it does that.

    Awesome. Hooray. Billions and billions of dollars for a shitty way to reform web search results into a coversational form, which is very often confidently wrong and misleading.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      And then more money spent on adding that additional garbage filter to the beginning and the end of the process which certainly won’t improve the results.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      copilot did the same with basic math. just to test it I said “let’s say I have a 10x6 rectangle. what number would I have to divide width and height by, in order to end up with a rectangle that’s half the area?”

      it said “in order to make it half, you should divide them by 2. so [pointlessly lengthy steps explaining the divisions]”

      I said “but that would make the area 5x3 = 15 units which is not half the area of 60”

      it said “you’re right! in order to … [fixing the answer to √2 using approximation”

      I don’t know if I said it then, or after some other fucking nonsense but when I said “you’re useless” it had the fucking audacity to take offense and end the conversation!

      like fuck off, you don’t get to have fake pride if you don’t have basic fake intelligence but use it in your description.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Its a perfect encapsulation of the corpo mindset:

        Whatever I do is profound, meaningful, with endless possibilities for future greatness…

        … even though I’m just talking out of my ass 99% of the time…

        … and if you have the audacity, the nerve, to have a completely normal reaction when you determine that that is what I am doing, pshaw, how uncouth, I won’t stand for your abuse!

        They’ve done it. They’ve made a talking (not thinking) machine in their own image.

        And it was not good.

        You start a conversation you can’t even finish it You’re talkin’ a lot, but you’re not sayin’ anything When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed Say something once, why say it again?

        Psycho Killer Qu’est-ce que c’est

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      please further describe thing gamma that you previously said you did not know about, but now say that you do know about.’

      It’s quite amusing to ask it about conspiracy theories. There’s a huge amount in it’s training set (not because the theories are true, just that they are often written about) that it has been dissuaded from discussing.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Cool, not really what I asked. Then command ‘write an implementation of bogo sort in python 3.’

      … and then it does that.

      Alright, but… it did the thing. That’s a feature older search engines couldn’t reliably perform. The output is wonky and the conversational style is misleading. But its not materially worse than sifting through wrong answers on StackExchange or digging through a stack of physical textbooks looking for Python 3 Bogo Sort IRL.

      I agree AI has annoying flaws and flubs. And it does appear we’re spending vast resources doing what a marginal improvement to Google five years ago could have done better. But this is better than previous implementations of search, because it gives you discrete applicable answers rather than a collection of dubiously associated web links.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        But this is better than previous implementations of search, because it gives you discrete applicable answers rather than a collection of dubiously associated web links.

        Except for when you ask it to determine if a thing exists by describing its properties, and then it says no such thing exists while providing a discrete response explaining in detail how there are things that have some, but not all of those properties…

        … And then when you ask it specifically about a thing you already know about that has all those properties, it tells you about how it does exist and describes it in detail.

        What is the point of a ‘conversational search engine’ if it cannot help you find information unless you already know about said information?!

        The whole, entire point of formatting it into a conversational format is to trick people into thinking they are talking to an expert, an archivist with encyclopedaeic knowledge, who will give them accurate answers.

        Yet it gatekeeps information that it does have access to but omits.

        The format of providing a bunch of likely related links to a query is a format much more reminiscent of doing actual research, with no impression that you will immediately find what you want right away, that this is a tool to aide you in your research process.

        This is only an improvement if you want to further unteach people how to do actual research and critical thinking.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Except for when you ask it to determine if a thing exists by describing its properties

          Basic search can’t answer that either. You’re describing a task neither system is well equipped to accomplish.

          • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            With basic search, it is extremely obvious that that feature does not exist.

            With conversational search, the search itself gaslights you into believing it has this feature, as it understands how to syntactically parse the question, and then answers it confidently with a wrong answer.

            I would much rather buy a car that cannot fly, knowing it cannot fly, than a car that literally talks to you and tells you it can fly, and sometimes manages to glide a bit, but also randomly nose dives into the ground whilst airborne.

      • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t feel like off-the-cuff summaries by AI can replace web sites and detailed articles written by knowledgeable humans. Maybe if you’re looking for a basic summary of a topic.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t feel like off-the-cuff summaries by AI can replace web sites and detailed articles written by knowledgeable humans

          No. But that’s not what a typical search result returns.

          There’s also no guarantee the “detailed articles” you get back are well-informed or correct. Lots of top search results are just ad copy or similar propaganda. YouTube, in particular, is rife with long winded bullshitters.

          What you’re looking for is a well-edited trustworthy encyclopedia, not a search engine.

          • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Sure. It depends on the topic. It also depends how good you are at searching. Personally, I don’t have any difficulty finding quality websites via Google or DuckDuckGo. Sometimes it requires refining the search terms, and many people don’t know how to do that properly. For certain topics, I might not. However, i stand by my assertion that some statistically generated text which you can trust at all is less useful than a good article on a topic. Is Wikipedia useful also? Yes, it is.