What Ars Technica says versus reality. The reality is that these software are not even alpha level. Bard, for instance, gave links to data which itself had dead bit.ly links.
The reality is if you want your business to die? Rely on Generative AI to replace people.
Generative AI is at the “proof of concept” stage — it is not a complete and viable system. It’s GREAT at generating bullshit.
@feloneouscat
I'm not the greatest at math but these images have me totally baffled.
Please tell me this isn't the new math.
@Jeber @feloneouscat If I have 2 $2 bills and 1 $1 bill; I'm buying $5 worth of stuff.
@feloneouscat @DCliffo
It's too early to be getting this confused.
@Jeber @DCliffo Oh, this amuses me. As a retired software/hardware engineer one of my main gripes was business testing for success instead of testing for failure.
Apparently there are a lot of poor writers doing the same thing.
These generative programs produce, at best, bad answers. Alfred couldn’t tell me how many indictments were in the Clinton Administration, at one time saying there were 2568 indictments. When asked for a link it gave a dead link.
There were only two.
@Jeber @DCliffo I find it disturbing that generative AI lies so easily and readily.
The problem has less to do with math than the overall model: to give an authoritative answer at, apparently, all costs, even at the cost of telling the truth.
My silly question about woodchucks is a great one: it said 700 lbs of wood. This is based on the fact that if you replaced the amount of dirt with the equivalent amount of wood. The fact is they don’t chuck wood at all.
@feloneouscat @DCliffo
Its problem with providing answers lacking truth sounds amazingly like the Republican Party.