Google rolled out AI overviews across the United States this month, exposing its flagship product to the hallucinations of large language models.

Google rolled out AI overviews across the United States this month, exposing its flagship product to the hallucinations of large language models.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    6 months ago

    I’m actually a domain expert on AI whilst your “assertive denial without a single counter-argument” answer to my simplified explanation together with your “understanding” of the subject matter shown in the post before that one, shows you’re at the peak of the Dunning-Krugger curve on this domain and also that you do not use analytical thinking or the scientific method in any way form or shape when analysing a subject.

    There is literally no point in explaining anything to somebody who reasons like that and is at that point of that curve.

    You keep your strongly held “common sense” beliefs and I’ll keep from wasting any more of my time.

    • Eheran@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      6 months ago

      this paper clearly says it is capable of original thought. It also “speaks” of it in high regard in other things.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        Re-read it: it says AI is capable of “originality” and does not mention “thought” at all.

        You’re the one presuming that “originality” requires cognition and hence understood “originality” as meaning “original thought” even though they’re different concepts (specifically the latter is a subset of the former).

        In your interpretation of that paper you did the exact same logical mistake as you seem to be doing in your interpretation of LLMs - you made assumptions backed only by gut feeling thus taking a leap to reach a conclusion ultimately supported only by your gut feeling.

        • Eheran@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          6 months ago

          “electronic parrot” and outperforming almost all humans in creativity and originality is an extreme contrast to me, regardless of my misuse of terms. So I fail to understand what you want to say, since this contrast must be apparent to you too.

          The original context of my comment was even more basic and to me proven by what the paper says: Those are not things it copied somewhere. Also, I still think there is no test to prove it can/can’t think.