• snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Because most people are too lazy to bother with making sure the results are accurate when they sound plausible. They want to believe the hype, and lack critical thinking.

    • Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I don’t want to believe any hype! I just want to be able to ask “hey Chatgtp, I’m looking for a YouTube video by technology connections where he discusses dryer heat pumps.” And not have it spit out "it’s called “the neat ways your dryer heat pumps save energy!”

      And it is not, that video doesn’t exist. And it’s even harder to disprove it on first glance because the LLM is mimicing what Alex would have called the video. So you look and look with your sisters very inefficient PS4 controller-to-youtube interface… And finally ask it again and it shy flowers you…

      But I swear he talked about it ?!?! Anyone?!?

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        He hasn’t

        I think in a recent video he mentioned he will soon, but he hasn’t done a video with even a segment on best pumps in dryers yet

        Fairly confident in this, recently finished a rewatch of basically all his content

    • ms.lane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 hours ago

      This sound awfully familiar, like almost exactly what people were saying about Wikipedia 20 years ago…

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Those people were wrong because wikipedia requires actual citations from credible sources, not comedic subreddits and infowars. Wikipedia is also completely open about the information being summarized, both in who is presenting it and where someone can confirm it is accurate.

        AI is a presented to the user as a black box and tries to be portray it as equivalent to human with terms like ‘hallucinations’ which really mean ‘is wrong a bunch, lol’.

      • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Pretty weak analogy. Wikipedia was technologically trivial and did a really good job of avoiding vested interests. Also the hype is orders of magnitude different, noone ever claimed Wikipedia was going to lead to superhuman intelligences or to replacement of swathes of human creative/service workers.

        Actually since you mention it, my hot take is that Wikipedia might have been a more significant step forward in AI than openAI/latest generation LLMs. The creation of that corpus is hugely valuable in training and benchmarking models of natural language. Also it actually disrupted an industry (conventional encyclopedias) in a way that I’m struggling to think of anything that LLMs has replaced in the same way thus far.