“statistically doesn’t happen” is not equivalent to “has never happened”. It means the number of times it has happened is such a statistically insignificant % of the user base that it does not pass the smell test for being the reason to inconvenience every user.

Other people not knowing how to secure their devices is not an excuse for my device that I own to block me from using it the way I want to.

What % of users side load apps vs what % of users had someone else install a bug on their phone?

It’s a situation that statistically doesn’t happen, and now every legitimate user is being inconvenienced to stop it? This if like agree verification laws being sold as “protecting children” as an excuse to spy on and control people.

It does a pretty good job of making the game still look (almost) exactly the same

Isn’t that just displaying the image with extra steps? Why is my PC using all this extra processing power in order to make it look (almost) exactly the same?

I’ve been sending my wife steamed hams memes to reminder her to do her physio.

The fact that they had to make a riddle for the AI to trip it up

“I want to take my car to the car wash, should I walk or drive” is not a riddle. It requests basic understanding of what is being asked.

Even if that were true, you’re still paying more than you would be for a “dumb” TV that doesn’t have those features. So everybody loses but the company selling the hardware still sees a sale. They lose a lot more if they pay the cost to produce and then never sell the device.

You are paying for features you don’t use (such as Internet access). That’s not a win.

I think you are underestimating how accurate LLMs are because you probably don’t use them much, and only see there mistakes posted for memes. No one’s going to post the 99 times an LLM gives the correct answer, but the one time it says to put glue on pizza it’s going to go viral. So if your only view on LLM output is from posts, you’re going to think it’s way worse than it is.

And look at what is on my feed just this morning: https://lemmy.world/post/44099386

It’s not just that LLMs are shit. It’s that people trust them way too much and are shocked when the predictable happens.

Even if you mark it down for incorrect answers it’s still going to beat most people. An LLM can score in the 90th percentile in the SAT, and around the 80th percentile in the LSAT.

And of course the AI bro goes for the “vibes” argument. You can’t just state that as true without providing a source. Or did AI tell you it was true?

For example: fewer than 10% of tested AIs consistently properly answered that you need to drive to a car wash in order to wash your car: https://opper.ai/blog/car-wash-test

That’s a question so far below anything on the SAT or LSAT and 90% of LLMs can’t even get that right.

If you’re doubting my percentages on the accuracy of LLMs I’d encourage you to test them yourself.

I’ve tried using LLMs. I don’t use them for research, because why the fuck would I? Better, more efficient tools already exist for that. When I had something that a search engine can’t help me with and LLMs are apparently “good at” it immediately proved itself to be worthless.

I’m just imagining how spammy it would be to see this reply on every comment that has more than 69 upvotes.

Yup. At one point that number was 69 in order to get to where it is now. Good job.

An LLM will give more accurate declaritive statements on more question then any human can

Not if you include “I don’t know” as an accurate statement or penalize the score for incorrect declarative statements.

So is it not more trustworthy for giving declaritive statements than any random human? Would you not trust an LLMs answer on who the 4th president is over a random human?

I would absolutely trust the random human more because they’re not going to make shit up if they don’t know. It will either be “I don’t know” or “I would guess” to make it clear they aren’t confident. The LLM will give me a declarative answer but I have no fucking clue if it’s accurate or an “hallucination” (lie). I’ll need to do what I should have done in the first place and ask a search engine to make sure.

they have good declaritive knowledge

No. They don’t. They are good at making declarative statements.
That’s not the same thing.

Every day you also probably see a new post of humans being blatantly wrong, does that mean humans can’t know things?

I fully agree that asking a random human for help with something is just as effective as asking an LLM to help with something.

If I need to know something (like who was the first president of the United States) I will not go outside and ask a random human, I will ask a trustworthy source.
If I need some code written I won’t have a random human do it, I will interview people to find someone capable.
If I need someone to interact with customers I won’t let some random human come in and do it.

So you replied to an article about something happening in the US to talk about Canada without mentioning Canada anywhere in your original post?

If you’re Canadian then you know “left of center” in American units is still to the right of center everywhere else in the world.

It’s absurd to see a democrat doing something and blame liberals for it.

Whether an LLM can determine truth depends on your definition of truth

Of course someone who doesn’t believe “truth” exists thinks LLMs are just fine. You have to not believe things can be true in order to find their output acceptable.

An LLM can derive this sort of truth by determining the consensus of its training data assuming its training data is from trustworthy sources or the more trustworthy sources are more reinforced.

Every week I see a new post of an LLM being blantly wrong. LLMs said to add glue to pizza to make the cheese stick together.

“They have improved the models since then…” Last week the American military used “AI” and it targeted a school as a military structure. The models are full of shit, they just manually remove the blantly incorrect shit whenever they make the rounds, and there’s always more blantly incorrect shit to be found.

An LLM has no knowledge.

My calculator does not “know” that 2+2=4, it runs the code it has been programmed with which tells it to output 4. It has no knowledge or understanding of what it’s being asked to do, it just does what it is programmed to do.

An LLM is programmed to guess what a human would say if asked who the 4th president of the United States was. It runs the code that was developed with the training data to output the most likely response. Is it true? Doesn’t matter. All that matters is that it sounds like something a human would say.

I trust the knowledge of my calculator more, because it was designed to give factual correct responses.

They all “lie” because they don’t actually know a damn thing. Everything an LLM outputs is just a guess of what a human might do.

Except for “diagnose these symptoms”, with proper framework around it (only using it for flagging things, not for actually making decisions, things that have been discussed thousands of times) that’s a valid task for them.

This sounds like someone who knows nothing about construction saying “building a house” is a valid task because they don’t understand why using a hammer to drive in a screw would be incorrect or why it’s even a problem. “The results are good enough right?”

And I give it less then a year before the “oh shit, we really should have human’s overseeing this” hits

So in the composite object of “LLM” what is the tool and what is the task?

The tool is “Language Learning Model” and the task is “Learn language and mimic human speech.”

The task is not “Provide accurate information” or “write code” or “provide legal advice” or “Diagnose these symptoms” or “provide customer service” or “manage a database”.