• festnt@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      “want me to try again with even more randomized noise?” literally makes no sense if it had generated what you asked (which the chatbot thinks it did)

      • joshchandra@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        Remember, “AI” (autocomplete idiocy) doesn’t know what sense is; it just continues words and displays what may seem to address at least some of the topic with no innate understanding of accuracy or truth.

        Never forget that ChatGPT 2.0 can literally be run in a giant Excel spreadsheet with no other program needed. It’s not “smart” and is ultimately millions of formulae at work.

    • Gloomy@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      Wow. I ABSOLUTLY saw an image of a dog in the middle. Our brain sure is fascinating sometimes.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      I love how they come up with different names for all the ways the fucking thing doesn’t work just to avoid saying it’s fucking useless. hallucinating. waluigi effect. how about “doesn’t fucking work”

  • adr1an@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    29 days ago

    That’s human-like intelligence at its finest. I am not being sarcastic, hear me out. If you told a person to give you 10 numbers at random, they can’t. Everyone thinks randomness is easy, but it isn’t ( see: random.org )

    So, of course a GPT model would fail at this task, I love that they do fail and the dog looks so cute!!

    • kaidezee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      I mean, here’s a few random numbers out of my head: 1 9 5 2 6 8 6 3 4 0. I don’t get it, why is it supposed to be hard? Sure, they’re not “truly” random, but they sure look random /:

      • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        You have one of each number except 7, and you’re deliberately avoiding doubles and runs of consecutive numbers. Human attempts at randomness tend to be very idealized in that way, and as a result, less random.

        • YourMomsTrashman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          28 days ago

          My favourite example of this is that IIRC itunes pushed an update that made the shuffle feature less random because they were getting complaints about it not being random enough