Well you see in the US, the vehicle just becomes the same legal entity as the owner, after a certain number of years.
EDIT
And when you hit the age you qualify for retriement, well they just roll back 'the odometer', as a kind of traditional joke, reflected in some records.
As funny as this is, Gemini was essentially broken on release. For context this is a current response
Its fun to laugh at how stupid it was, but the fact its gotten better honestly just increases the risk that someone will believe a hallucination and bad information proliferates because its embedded in largely good information making it appear trustworthy, and if you don't know the answer then you dont know when it's confidently wrong. And it increases the risk that AI usage will grow as people decide they think its helpful, with harmful implications for the environment and labor.
It would frankly be nice if had stayed that stupid, it would be much less harmful that way
Yes its my understanding that other models are generally considered much better. I don't think I've ever really seen anyone glaze Gemini though. If you're talking about my comment you're replying to, I'm not sure I'd agree that saying its now capable of giving a vaguely competent and accurate sounding answer that isnt complete garbage is glazing 😅
Do you see folks aside from google marketing people hyping up Gemini in comparison to other models? (I dont follow things super closely so I may be kinda out of the loop)
Out of curiosity, which do you think produces the most helpful outputs? I care a lot about how technology harms or helps people, and honestly the more capable ai gets the more I'm concerned that without regulatory guard rails its going to do an incredible amount of harm. So I've tried to at least keep up with vaguely where its at, but I've mostly just used chatGPT, though I've tried to limit my usage cause I don't like the way it feels like it impacts me mentally
Mostly it has seemed better at finding burried information than a search engine, but very unreliable for certain other kinds of tasks. Weirdly it has seemed difficult to predict what kinds of tasks it will perform well, and which it'll butcher
I haven't tried Claude or Grok so I can't speak to their outputs, other than the latter being known for it's Mecha-Hitlerness. ChatGPT can simultaneously be smart and yet super dumb at times, and Alexa is pretty aggressive with marketing products off Amazon (go figure). Microsoft Copilot is not very useful because it can't do stuff that you'd expect an AI integrated into an OS is capable of. For instance, I can't just tell it to batch rename stuff inside Windows Explorer without having to do through a PowerShell script that I would have to execute (which any LLM can generate anyway).
I've mostly been using it to help me make 3D models, surprisingly enough. It is pretty capable with OpenSCAD with a decent amount of hand holding. But again it can be dumb (I had to explain to it how a handle works lol).
I only use it sparingly at my actual job and only as a double check or grammar check as it more frequently makes mistakes that are less obvious to catch than in 3D modeling.
I still get hilariously bad, wildly inaccurate or false responses from search engine AI.
If the answer isn't in the training data or easily searchable on the web, it will make shit up and lie to you with the confidence of a used car salesman.
It's not always this egregious, but it can be. I still see AI messing up the "how many letters are in this word" prompts years after I first discovered that it was a thing.
Yeah, honestly its worse at "how many characters are in this word" kinds of questions than just about anything else. Asking what time it is in other places sometimes yields similar nonsense
And, at the same time, sometimes its able to find things that exist somewhere on the web that I simply cannot find because search engines are a broken disaster. I was looking for short, wide, aquarium stem plants like starugyne repens, but that would be better for a low tech aquarium- low tech plant alternatives to high tech ones feels like a thing that 100% exists somewhere in discussion on the web. Search engines found nothing. ChatGPT found me hygrophila corymbosa 'compact'. Which is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, but that search engines were just incapable of finding. And honestly thats largely an indictment of search engines. It wouldn't surprise me if google in part was making a cost benefit analysis on allowing search to be broken since it probably makes people more dependent on ai results.
But thats an easily verifyable thing, where the information exists out there somewhere, and neccisarily I need to look it up to use the information in anyway. I'm more "looking for something" that I know probably exists, than trying to learn something or get information in a conventional sense.
I find its more successful when its organizing existing information around a question that isnt the exact same blog post or article that every relevant source has written because it has optimal SEO and appeals to the widest number of people within that niche (eg: "low tech stem plants" except I'm looking for one with an atypical growth pattern so none of those articles help and google just shows me a million useless pages because theyre almost what I want, and there are millions of them)
On the other hand I went looking for an old quote from a book about antisemitism and it seemed to just keep making shit up and saying it was from other translations of the book, even as I gave it more and more of the actual quote when I found it without ai. Which was quite a while back now, so maybe I need to try that again.
But the more functional it gets the more risk it carries, and the more it can worm its way into people's lives and reshape social contracts that society has always been built on, while doing lots of environmental harm :/
Every time these get posted, I go and check if it's true. And then I realize I deliberately used Google to read an AI summary and feel sick about it. I've been tricked into giving them traffic
Also, it clearly isn't static. I played around with Gemini and when I got some clearly BS response, just repeating the prompt would often lead to a more correct result.
No, this is still a common occurrence and pretty well documented. LLMs give a random answer based on a dataset and programmed weighting towards certain types of responses. This is why you can give the same prompt to the same LLM repeatedly and get different responses each time, or different responses by slightly modifying the prompt, even if both prompts say essentially the exact same thing. There is no comparison or "learning" happening from user input. It doesn't think, rationalize, or memorize. This is just what LLMs are and how they work under the hood.
Anthropomorphizing LLMs is a bad idea, and trusting the output without manual verification is foolish. The LLM does not know or care about misinformation, it is just a software that analyzes a dataset and outputs that information with programmed noise for variance, and sometimes extra user ass-kissing added for flair.
I thought my first comment would make it clear that I'm very much not pro-AI so I'm not sure why I'm getting a lecture on anthropomorphizing it.
But there's still a lot wrong with your comment. You're assuming that the data set never change and the parameters are never tweaked which is wildly untrue. Answers like this are not a common occurrence anymore because when a new one pops up, companies have a vested interest in updating the system instructions.
I'm not saying the summaries are good now. Just that most of the outrageous answers have long since been fixed
It wasn't a lecture, nor was it a personal attack to you. Your comment didn't anthropomorphize LLMs, so I'm not sure how you interpreted that as me coming at you. The only place we disagree on this topic based on what we've each commented so far is that misinformation is inherently a byproduct of how LLMs currently function.
You may not be as neutral on this topic as you claim if a response like mine felt offensive. It was a fairly predictable counter argument, and I'm not even the only one who made it in the replies.
The rest of this looks like how my kids thought growing up worked when they were really little. They expected to just keep growing, thought I was too, so by now I should be about 30 feet tall and yeah, 5,000 lb.
I feel a lot better about myself now. I had gained some weight that I've been trying to lose, but now I find out that I'm significantly under the average for my age range. I have over 500lbs before I'd even hit the average so I'm doing fantastic.
I'm not paying that much for an American. They can't spell and they don't know the correct names for vegetables, I'll have so much educating to do, it's not worth it.
85 Comments
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world · 201 pts · 136d
Ladies, if your man weighs 4,900 pounds, that's not your man. That's a 2026 GMC Sierra 1500 Denali.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 41 pts · 135d
So that’s where my money went..,
Sturgist@piefed.ca · 8 pts · 135d
Was it about tree fiddy?
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 14 pts · 135d
Well you see in the US, the vehicle just becomes the same legal entity as the owner, after a certain number of years.
EDIT
And when you hit the age you qualify for retriement, well they just roll back 'the odometer', as a kind of traditional joke, reflected in some records.
ceenote@lemmy.world · 152 pts · 135d
Bear in mind, these are averages, not medians. They can be thrown off by the relatively few Americans who weigh 100,000,000+ lbs each.
SatyrSack@quokk.au · 53 pts · 135d
Burgers Georg
asmoranomar@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 135d
At birth I weighed 10 years and aged like 20,000 lbs.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe · 6 pts · 135d
Not bears, people.
liuther9@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 135d
Beets, Battlestar galactica
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 135d
my ears are fattening
Avicenna@programming.dev · 1 pts · 134d
intricacies of data analysis
Gork@sopuli.xyz · 70 pts · 135d
By golly, this just shows us that we need AI in everything now!
The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world · 81 pts · 135d
Don't worry, we'll start slowly and responsibly with inconsequential things like medicine and war.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 135d
"Adenosine/atropine, it's one of those 'A' drugs. Just give them a few milligrams and see what happens. We'll go from there."
darkstar@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 134d
War is not inconsequential are you kidding me?? Have you not seen the profit margins?? Have you not seen the Dow?? /s
fartographer@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 135d
I'm so glad that I invested in a 60 lb bag of cement last year! In 50-59 years, I'm gonna be able to sell this bag for a fortune!
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 56 pts · 135d
As funny as this is, Gemini was essentially broken on release. For context this is a current response
Its fun to laugh at how stupid it was, but the fact its gotten better honestly just increases the risk that someone will believe a hallucination and bad information proliferates because its embedded in largely good information making it appear trustworthy, and if you don't know the answer then you dont know when it's confidently wrong. And it increases the risk that AI usage will grow as people decide they think its helpful, with harmful implications for the environment and labor.
It would frankly be nice if had stayed that stupid, it would be much less harmful that way
spicehoarder@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 135d
Google models always suck ass, I don't get why people ever glaze it. Or google in general.
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 3 pts · 135d
Yes its my understanding that other models are generally considered much better. I don't think I've ever really seen anyone glaze Gemini though. If you're talking about my comment you're replying to, I'm not sure I'd agree that saying its now capable of giving a vaguely competent and accurate sounding answer that isnt complete garbage is glazing 😅
Do you see folks aside from google marketing people hyping up Gemini in comparison to other models? (I dont follow things super closely so I may be kinda out of the loop)
Gork@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 135d
Gemini is near the bottom of the pack for me personally. It once suggested to me that my gasoline powered lawn mower doesn't need an oil change 🙄
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 135d
Out of curiosity, which do you think produces the most helpful outputs? I care a lot about how technology harms or helps people, and honestly the more capable ai gets the more I'm concerned that without regulatory guard rails its going to do an incredible amount of harm. So I've tried to at least keep up with vaguely where its at, but I've mostly just used chatGPT, though I've tried to limit my usage cause I don't like the way it feels like it impacts me mentally
Mostly it has seemed better at finding burried information than a search engine, but very unreliable for certain other kinds of tasks. Weirdly it has seemed difficult to predict what kinds of tasks it will perform well, and which it'll butcher
Gork@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 135d
I haven't tried Claude or Grok so I can't speak to their outputs, other than the latter being known for it's Mecha-Hitlerness. ChatGPT can simultaneously be smart and yet super dumb at times, and Alexa is pretty aggressive with marketing products off Amazon (go figure). Microsoft Copilot is not very useful because it can't do stuff that you'd expect an AI integrated into an OS is capable of. For instance, I can't just tell it to batch rename stuff inside Windows Explorer without having to do through a PowerShell script that I would have to execute (which any LLM can generate anyway).
I've mostly been using it to help me make 3D models, surprisingly enough. It is pretty capable with OpenSCAD with a decent amount of hand holding. But again it can be dumb (I had to explain to it how a handle works lol).
I only use it sparingly at my actual job and only as a double check or grammar check as it more frequently makes mistakes that are less obvious to catch than in 3D modeling.
KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 135d
I've had the duckduckgo ai (which I have since disabled) relatively recently hallucinate that the walking speed of a game character was like mach 4.5
And it considered that speed "slow+"
KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 135d
Furbag@pawb.social · 1 pts · 134d
I still get hilariously bad, wildly inaccurate or false responses from search engine AI.
If the answer isn't in the training data or easily searchable on the web, it will make shit up and lie to you with the confidence of a used car salesman.
It's not always this egregious, but it can be. I still see AI messing up the "how many letters are in this word" prompts years after I first discovered that it was a thing.
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 134d
Yeah, honestly its worse at "how many characters are in this word" kinds of questions than just about anything else. Asking what time it is in other places sometimes yields similar nonsense
And, at the same time, sometimes its able to find things that exist somewhere on the web that I simply cannot find because search engines are a broken disaster. I was looking for short, wide, aquarium stem plants like starugyne repens, but that would be better for a low tech aquarium- low tech plant alternatives to high tech ones feels like a thing that 100% exists somewhere in discussion on the web. Search engines found nothing. ChatGPT found me hygrophila corymbosa 'compact'. Which is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, but that search engines were just incapable of finding. And honestly thats largely an indictment of search engines. It wouldn't surprise me if google in part was making a cost benefit analysis on allowing search to be broken since it probably makes people more dependent on ai results.
But thats an easily verifyable thing, where the information exists out there somewhere, and neccisarily I need to look it up to use the information in anyway. I'm more "looking for something" that I know probably exists, than trying to learn something or get information in a conventional sense.
I find its more successful when its organizing existing information around a question that isnt the exact same blog post or article that every relevant source has written because it has optimal SEO and appeals to the widest number of people within that niche (eg: "low tech stem plants" except I'm looking for one with an atypical growth pattern so none of those articles help and google just shows me a million useless pages because theyre almost what I want, and there are millions of them)
On the other hand I went looking for an old quote from a book about antisemitism and it seemed to just keep making shit up and saying it was from other translations of the book, even as I gave it more and more of the actual quote when I found it without ai. Which was quite a while back now, so maybe I need to try that again.
But the more functional it gets the more risk it carries, and the more it can worm its way into people's lives and reshape social contracts that society has always been built on, while doing lots of environmental harm :/
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works · 43 pts · 135d
69 pound 1 year old, such a big baby.
UnpledgedCatnapTipper@piefed.blahaj.zone · 40 pts · 135d
Nono, if you're 60-69 pounds old, the average weight is 1 year.
teft@piefed.social · 21 pts · 135d
Anything but metric.
harmbugler@piefed.social · 3 pts · 135d
Yes but it's a light year.
HexesofVexes@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 135d
Crap, I'm underweight; time to order at least 296 pizzas.
Anyone got a voucher?
zout@fedia.io · 22 pts · 135d
I can vouch that you won't survive eating 296 pizzas.
HexesofVexes@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 135d
Hopes, deleted....
glimse@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 135d
Every time these get posted, I go and check if it's true. And then I realize I deliberately used Google to read an AI summary and feel sick about it. I've been tricked into giving them traffic
clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 135d
I get a reasonable result. Maybe they fix these things quickly?
Know how you feel, though.
Routhinator@startrek.website · 13 pts · 135d
Randomized result.
glimse@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 135d
Because almost all of these nonsensical summaries are from when it was newly implemented so we're all making fun of something from a couple years ago
Kalothar@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 135d
Not always, I’ll screen shot some if I see I get a new one, but I’ve definitely had some nonsense answers recently.
glimse@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 135d
Right, that's why I said "almost all"
But these posts rarely have a date attached and the posters are rarely the ones to take the screenshot
Kalothar@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 135d
Fair enough, I can definitely agree
testaccount789@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 135d
Also, it clearly isn't static. I played around with Gemini and when I got some clearly BS response, just repeating the prompt would often lead to a more correct result.
grue@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 135d
That's because all these LLMs are inherently random.
Tippy@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 135d
No, this is still a common occurrence and pretty well documented. LLMs give a random answer based on a dataset and programmed weighting towards certain types of responses. This is why you can give the same prompt to the same LLM repeatedly and get different responses each time, or different responses by slightly modifying the prompt, even if both prompts say essentially the exact same thing. There is no comparison or "learning" happening from user input. It doesn't think, rationalize, or memorize. This is just what LLMs are and how they work under the hood.
Anthropomorphizing LLMs is a bad idea, and trusting the output without manual verification is foolish. The LLM does not know or care about misinformation, it is just a software that analyzes a dataset and outputs that information with programmed noise for variance, and sometimes extra user ass-kissing added for flair.
glimse@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 135d
I thought my first comment would make it clear that I'm very much not pro-AI so I'm not sure why I'm getting a lecture on anthropomorphizing it.
But there's still a lot wrong with your comment. You're assuming that the data set never change and the parameters are never tweaked which is wildly untrue. Answers like this are not a common occurrence anymore because when a new one pops up, companies have a vested interest in updating the system instructions.
I'm not saying the summaries are good now. Just that most of the outrageous answers have long since been fixed
Tippy@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 135d
It wasn't a lecture, nor was it a personal attack to you. Your comment didn't anthropomorphize LLMs, so I'm not sure how you interpreted that as me coming at you. The only place we disagree on this topic based on what we've each commented so far is that misinformation is inherently a byproduct of how LLMs currently function.
You may not be as neutral on this topic as you claim if a response like mine felt offensive. It was a fairly predictable counter argument, and I'm not even the only one who made it in the replies.
glimse@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 135d
Well, you did reply to me. I didn't realize you turned to the audience for the second paragraph
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 135d
Don't be tricked, read other people's comments.
vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 19 pts · 135d
If David Attenborough was American he would have just turned into a black hole.
darklamer@feddit.org · 16 pts · 135d
American units of measurement are so weird.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 135d
You take that back. It's patently untrue and it's evoked at least 10 hamburgers worth of anger from me.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 135d
dude go eat two hamburgers. my doctor said if i got to nine burgers i could have an event and i worry about you
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 135d
An event like a party? Sounds fun!
darklamer@feddit.org · 2 pts · 135d
🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 135d
How long is that in parsecs?
ICastFist@programming.dev · 6 pts · 135d
About 17 bananas
RBWells@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 135d
A 70lb 1 year old, lol.
The rest of this looks like how my kids thought growing up worked when they were really little. They expected to just keep growing, thought I was too, so by now I should be about 30 feet tall and yeah, 5,000 lb.
nuko147@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 135d
Shit, I'm underweight. From today, 3 pizzas for dinner every day.
Tja@programming.dev · 12 pts · 135d
Hopefully you'll weigh 1 year when the time comes...
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 135d
You can become a one year old again, by just losing some weight!
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 13 pts · 135d
This is why old people are so slow. They're heavy as fuck.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 135d
Godzilla Karen roar in the background
Raiderkev@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 135d
Looks like burgers are back on the menu boys, I'm severely underweight.
someguy3@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 135d
The waist is a terrible thing to mind.
you_are_dust@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 135d
I feel a lot better about myself now. I had gained some weight that I've been trying to lose, but now I find out that I'm significantly under the average for my age range. I have over 500lbs before I'd even hit the average so I'm doing fantastic.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe · 8 pts · 135d
✨
laranis@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 135d
Billions of dollars.
atro_city@fedia.io · 7 pts · 136d
Pounds? Get out of here with that. How many elephants?
massive_bereavement@fedia.io · 6 pts · 135d
How many Texas? 🤠
atro_city@fedia.io · 3 pts · 135d
Everything's bigger there so a Texas pound must be some multiple of a standard US pound.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 135d
It's a pound and 45 9mm rounds or about 2.2 pounds total. Shh. Don't tell them.
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 135d
Or Saarlands. How many Saarlands could be filled with 5000 pound males?
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 135d
Haters will say it's ai.
GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 135d
I think those are common scores in Calvin Ball.
whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 135d
Is that pounds sterling or American?
echodot@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 135d
I'm not paying that much for an American. They can't spell and they don't know the correct names for vegetables, I'll have so much educating to do, it's not worth it.
fubarx@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 134d
At 60, they switch over to units of time. After 70, to metric.
Edit: My bad. After 60 pounds, they reverse polarity.
MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca · 4 pts · 135d
Okay, on the one hand, another demonstration that air isn't particularly trustworthy etc... On the other hand though, I feel so skinny!
Avicenna@programming.dev · 4 pts · 134d
Light years is not a measurement of time it is a measurement of weight.
bss03@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 135d
Well, that makes me feel better about being only 264.2 lbs. @ age 46 (and 5'8").
pieland@piefed.social · 3 pts · 135d
!hmmm@lemmy.world
Professorozone@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 134d
Well Americans do run heavier than most other countries.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 135d
Behold that master
racetechmodus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 134d
I didn't realize my 64-year-old uncle was average-sized.
FluidBeef@quokk.au · 2 pts · 134d
Is this based on Elvis if he’d lived?
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 135d
Doesn't this also mean that the average life expectancy of a US American male is not much more than 29 years?
Dicska@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 134d
Maybe. But if they survive their 50s they end up being 69 pounds old.
WesternInfidels@feddit.online · 1 pts · 135d