I love to show that kind of shit to AI boosters. (In case you're wondering, the numbers were chosen randomly and the answer is incorrect).

They go waaa waaa its not a calculator, and then I can point out that it got the leading 6 digits and the last digit correct, which is a lot better than it did on the "softer" parts of the test.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 1 year ago (30 children)

Why would you think the machine that’s designed to make weighted guesses at what the next token should be would be arithmetically sound?

That’s not how any of this works (but you already knew that)

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (16 children)

    Idk personally i kind of expect the ai makers to have at least had the sense to allow their bots to process math with a calculator and not guesswork. That seems like, an absurdly low bar both for testing the thing as a user as well as a feature to think of.

    Didn't one model refer scientific questions to wolfram alpha? How do they smartly decide to do this and not give them basic math processing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    Idk personally i kind of expect the ai makers to have at least had the sense to allow their bots to process math with a calculator and not guesswork. That seems like, an absurdly low bar both for testing the thing as a user as well as a feature to think of.

    You forget a few major differences between us and AI makers.

    We know that these chatbots are low-quality stochastic parrots capable only of producing signal shaped noise. The AI makers believe their chatbots are omniscient godlike beings capable of solving all of humanity's problems with enough resources.

    The AI makers believe that imitating intelligence via guessing the next word is equivalent to being genuinely intelligent in a particular field. We know that a stochastic parrot is not intelligent, and is incapable of intelligence.

    AI makers believe creativity is achieved through stealing terabytes upon terabytes of other people's work and lazily mashing it together. We know creativity is based not in lazily mashing things together, but in taking existing work and using our uniquely human abilities to transform them into completely new works.

    We recognise the field of Artificial Intelligence as a pseudoscience. The AI makers are full believers in that pseudoscience.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Idk personally i kind of expect the ai makers to have at least had the sense to allow their bots to process math with a calculator and not guesswork.

    You are in for all kinds of surprises if you think the people shoving AI into everything are doing anything logical. They want everything to fit their singular model.

    Maybe some of the smaller ones that have to run locally might, because they care about resource usage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I would not expect that.

    Calculators haven’t been replaced, and the product managers of these services understand that their target market isn’t attempting to use them for things for which they were not intended.

    brb, have to ride my lawnmower to work

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 13 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Try asking my question to Google gemini a bunch of times, sometimes it gets it right, sometimes it doesn't. Seems to be about 50/50 but I quickly ran out of free access.

    And google is planning to replace their search (which includes a working calculator) with this stuff. So it is absolutely the case that there's a plan to replace one of the world's most popular calculators, if not the most popular, with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Also, a lawnmower is unlikely to say: "Sure, I am happy to take you to work" and "I am satisfied with my performance" afterwards. That's why I sometimes find these bots' pretentious demeanor worse than their functional shortcomings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    “Pretentious” is a trait expressed by something that’s thinking. These are the most likely words that best fit the context. Your emotional engagement with this technology is weird

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Pretentious is a fine description of the writing style. Which actual humans fine tune.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Given that the LLMs typically have a system prompt that specifies a particular tone for the output, I think pretentious is an absolutely valid and accurate word to use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Also, these bots have been deliberately fine-tuned in a way that is supposed to sound human. Sometimes, as a consequence, I find it difficult to describe their answering style without employing vocabulary used to describe human behavior. Also, I strongly suspect that this deliberate "human-like" style is a key reason for the current AI hype. It is why many people appear to excuse the bots' huge shortcomings. It is funny to be accused of being "emotional" when pointing out these patterns as problematic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 14 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    The funny thing is, even though I wouldn't expect it to be, it is still a lot more arithmetically sound than what ever is it that is going on with it claiming to use a code interpreter and a calculator to double check the result.

    It is OK (7 out of 12 correct digits) at being a calculator and it is awesome at being a lying sack of shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    lying sack of shit

    Random tokens can’t lie to you, because they’re strings of text. Interpreting this as a lie is an interesting response

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    lol the corollary of this is that LLMs are incapable of producing meaningful output, you insufferable turd

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Im using it literally every single day to make huge gains. Every single day I disprove this comment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    I knew you were a lying promptfondler the instant you came into the thread, but I didn’t expect you to start acting like a gymbro trying to justify their black market steroid habit. new type of AI booster unlocked!

    now fuck off

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)