• antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    to fool into errors

    tricking a kid

    I’ve never tried to fool or trick AI with excessively complex questions. When I tried to test it (a few different models over some period of time - ChatGPT, Bing AI, Gemini) I asked stuff as simple as “what’s the etymology of this word in that language”, “what is [some phenomenon]”. The models still produced responses ranging from shoddy to absolutely ridiculous.

    completely detached from how anyone actually uses

    I’ve seen numerous people use it the same way I tested it, basically a Google search that you can talk with, with similarly shit results.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Why do we expect a higher degree of trustworthiness from a novel LLM than we de from any given source or forum comment on the internet?

      At what point do we stop hand-wringing over llms failing to meet some perceived level of accuracy and hold the people using it responsible for verifying the response themselves?

      Theres a giant disclaimer on every one of these models that responses may contain errors or hallucinations, at this point I think it’s fair to blame the user for ignoring those warnings and not the models for not meeting some arbitrary standard.