this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
87 points (98.9% liked)

Fuck AI

3437 readers
1539 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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There have been multiple things which have gone wrong with AI for me but these two pushed me over the brink. This is mainly about LLMs but other AI has also not been particularly helpful for me.

Case 1

I was trying to find the music video from where a screenshot was taken.

I provided o4 mini the image and asked it where it is from. It rejected it saying that it does not discuss private details. Fair enough. I told it that it is xyz artist. It then listed three of their popular music videos, neither of which was the correct answer to my question.

Then I started a new chat and described in detail what the screenshot was. It once again regurgitated similar things.

I gave up. I did a simple reverse image search and found the answer in 30 seconds.

Case 2

I wanted a way to create a spreadsheet for tracking investments which had xyz columns.

It did give me the correct columns and rows but the formulae for calculations were off. They were almost correct most of the time but almost correct is useless when working with money.

I gave up. I manually made the spreadsheet with all the required details.

Why are LLMs so wrong most of the time? Aren’t they processing high quality data from multiple sources? I just don’t understand the point of even making these softwares if all they can do is sound smart while being wrong.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] leftzero@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 21 hours ago

The thing about LLMs is that they "store" information about the shape of their training models, not about the information contained therein. That information is lost.

A LLM will produce text that looks like the texts it was trained with, but it only can only reproduce any information contained in them if it's common enough in its training data to statistically affect their shape, and even then it has a chance to get it wrong, since it has no way to check its output for fact accuracy.

Add to that that most models are pre-prompted to sound confident, helpful, and subservient (the companies' main goal not being to provide information, but to get their customers hooked on their product and coming back for more), and you get the perfect scammers and yes-men. Auto-complete mentalists that will give you as much confident sounding information shaped nonsense as you want, doing their best to agree with you and confirm any biases you might have, with complete disregard for accuracy, truth, or the effects your trust in their output might have (which makes them extremely dangerous and addictive for suggestible or intellectually or emotionally vulnerable users).