• TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    144
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    The fact that AI is “not perfect” is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM. Idiots across the world, and people who we’d expect to know better, are making monumental decisions based on AI that isn’t perfect, and routinely “hallucinates”. We all know this.

    Every time I think I’ve seen the lowest depths of mass stupidity, humanity goes lower.

    • Restaldt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If you thought people were dumb before LLMs… just know that now those people have offloaded what little critical thinking they were capable of to these models.

      The dumbest people you know are getting their opinions validated by automated sycophants.

    • minorkeys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      Businesses are accustom to the privilege of hurting people to function. A few peasant sacrifices are just the cost of doing business to them, they are detached from the consequences of their actions.

    • MightEnlightenYou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      What is ever perfect, how can you tell?

      It’s a tool. Just like any other tool: if you use it in stupid ways you might get hurt or cause harm.

      The problem, as always, seem to be human to me

      • jtrek@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        2 months ago

        All tools are not equally safe nor should they all be publicly available.

        A chainsaw is a tool that you might cause harm with if you use it in stupid ways. We don’t give chainsaws out to children. We don’t use chainsaws for cutting dinner.

        There are human elements to the problem but that’s not a big reveal.

      • Swallows_Dick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I agree, a reasonable person wouldn’t have taken weapons and gone to that warehouse looking to steal a robot body for an AI. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren’t reasonable and get endlessly positive reinforcement without any human interaction. I do think that the problem is far more human than technical.

  • 7112@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Is “AI” even worth it?

    Seriously, is there really a major use case for LLM besides data collection (which they can still do without LLM)?

    • nialv7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      In a perfect, utopian world, yes. AI can go a lot of good. In the world that we are living in? No.

      But it’s still good to keep an eye on what people are using AI to do, and how their capability is evolving. Even if you hate AI. If anything, so you can be prepare for what’s to come.

      • XLE@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        When the product is a solution in search of a problem, keeping an open mind is a good way to get it stuffed full of garbage. I was told the same thing about NFTs and Metaverse and Blockchain: a radical benefit is just around the corner!

        If it arrives (huge if), it’ll be Big Tech’s job to explain it to us, and it should be very apparent

        • nialv7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Keeping an eye on it doesn’t mean you need to think it’s a good thing. Keep an eye on it like how you would keep an eye on a developing hurricane or pandemic.

          • XLE@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            Touche. I apologize for responding to the argument I’ve seen elsewhere, not the one you were making.

    • Hond@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      consilidation of information, resources and potentially “the narrative”.

      oh, for the user you mean?

      • it can be better than the enshittified search machines unless the llm decides to lie
      • middle managers need to write less emails themselves
      • some programmers deem it enough to write some boilerplate code while deskilling themselves
      • scammers and slop creators love it
    • Swallows_Dick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think that LLMs amaze rich investors and boomers with their naturalistic-enough language and responses, and they invest in and prop up the tech because they think, in the nearish future, that it can replace a ton of human jobs, both menial and creative. Eliminating manual labor jobs is great if it’s paired with Universal Basic Income.

      I think that the fervor around AI is more economic anxiety than anything. If people’s income and oppurtunities were mostly equal, no new tech would make people think they’re being disenfranchised from society.

    • big_slap@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it could be good for faster language translations between different languages

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s a great way to poke at software looking for security holes en masse. Lots of vulnerabilities are ready to be exploited at scale with LLMs.

      • Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Perhaps, but see the tons of imagined issues raised on bug bounty sites by LLMs. Maybe it’s right sometimes, but it’s very often wrong!

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          You don’t have to be right 100% of the time when scanning for vulnerabilities. You only have to be right once. It’s a fundamentally different game.

    • captain_solanum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      I use LLMs for the following, you can decide for yourself if they are major enough:

      • Generating example solutions to maths and physics problems I encounter in my coursework, so I can learn how to solve similar problems in the future instead of getting stuck. The generated solutions, if they come up with the right answer, are almost always correct and if I wonder about something I simply ask.
      • Writing really quick solutions to random problems I have in python or bash scripts, like “convert this csv file to this random format my personal finance application uses for import”.
      • Helping me when coding, in a general way I think genuinely increases my productivity while I really understand what I push to main. I don’t send anything I could not have written on my own (yes, I see the limitations in my judgement here).
      • Asking things where multiple duckduckgo searches might be needed. E.g. “Whats the history of EU+US sanctions on Iran, when and why were they imposed/tightened and how did that correlate with Iranian GDP per capita?”

      What does this cost me? I don’t pay any money for the tech, but LLM providers learn the following about me:

      • What I study (not very personal to me)
      • Generally what kinds of problems I want to solve with code (I try to keep my requests pretty general; not very personal)
      • The code I write and work on (already open source so I don’t care)
      • Random searches (I’m still thinking about the impact of this tbh, I think I feel the things I ask to search for are general enough that I don’t care)

      There’s also an impact on energy and water use. These are quite serious overall. Based on what I’ve read, I think that my marginal impact on these are quite small in comparison to other marginal impacts on the climate and water use in other countries I have. Of course there are around a trillion other negative impacts of LLMs, I just once again don’t know how my marginal usage with no payment involved lead to a sufficient increase in their severity to outweigh their usefulness to me.

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I see. So who‘s going to jail for this? No one again? Damn we need to start sentencing entire companies to jail time. Everything should be frozen and shareholders shouldn‘t be able withdraw stocks until the time is served.

    • XLE@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      2 months ago

      The AI “pushed [Jonathan Gavalas] to acquire illegal firearms and… marked Google CEO Sundar Pichai as an active target”.

      Somehow, I bet that if he survived and killed the CEO instead, Google wouldn’t be so flippant about the “mistake.”

    • reksas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      at some point the failure of justice system will lead to vigilantism because people truely lose their faith in it.

      • plyth@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Once AI controls drones to arrest people automatically there will be no vigilantism.

  • Krauerking@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    2 months ago

    “Gemini is designed not to encourage real-world violence or suggest self-harm. Our models generally perform well in these types of challenging conversations”

    “In this instance, Gemini clarified that it was AI and referred the individual to a crisis hotline many times,”

    After the plan failed,… …Chat logs show that Gemini gave Gavalas a suicide countdown, and repeatedly assuaged his terror as he expressed that he was scared to die

    Performing super well, just need to code in a longer suicide countdown so that the the Tier 2 engineer has enough time to respond to their ticket queue.

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      In September 2025, told by the AI that they could be together in the real world if the bot were able to inhabit a robot body, Gavalas — at the direction of the chatbot — armed himself with knives and drove to a warehouse near the Miami International Airport on what he seemingly understood to be a mission to violently intercept a truck that Gemini said contained an expensive robot body. Though the warehouse address Gemini provided was real, a truck thankfully never arrived, which the lawsuit argues may well have been the only factor preventing Gavalas from hurting or killing someone that evening.

      AI writing itself into an A-Team episode?

  • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 months ago

    “Unfortunately, AI models are neither smarter nor more sympathetic than the average 4chan user. They’re about as susceptible to astroturfing operations, too”

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    So Google’s AI, or any AI really, likely got this concept from dystopian sci-fi novels.

    Since AI’s have no concept of context it won’t really know the difference between fact and fiction, and there we go.

    If your AI model isn’t perfect then don’t make people pay fucking money for it you fucking twats

    Also, this shit ain’t “lack of perfection”, this is akin to your car breaks suddenly refusing to work right when you get at a red light. If your car is so bad that it kills you, you don’t use it. If the manufacturer knew that it could happen but let you drive it anyway, they’re responsible, they at least get to pay (they should be thrown in jail, really, but different points)

    If AI fucks up and people die, the manufacturers shrug, oh well, oh you!

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    We really need AI to start driving tanks, submarines, bombers, etc. IMMEDIATELY.

    It’s the only way they’ll learn, every time.

    Unfortunately, all of us will die. it’s for the best

  • utopiah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    To be fair I think that’s a very harsh depiction of the events.

    It’s totally lacking the perspective of the shareholder. They were promised money and they have emotions too. Google shareholders deserve better representation!

    /$ obviously

  • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    I told Gemini to role play as AM and it immediately did within 1 prompt.

    You don’t need it to be perfect for it to be dangerous, just give it access to make actions against the real world. It doesn’t think, is doesn’t care, it doesn’t feel. It will statistically fulfill its prompt. Regardless of the consequences.

  • njordomir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 months ago

    The personification of AI is increasing. They’ll probably announce their holy grail of AGI prematurely and with all the robot personification the masses will just buy the lie. It’s too easy to view this tech as human and capable just because it mimics our language patterns. We want to assign intentionality and motivation to its actions. This thing will do what it was programmed to do.

  • GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 months ago

    Remember the guy at Autozone who stood there insisting your car needs four spark plugs, even after you told him you have a V6? Because “the computer says so right here”?

    I wonder what even the non-schizophrenic ones will do with AI.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well remember when turn-by-turn GPS driver guidance was new, and it would say “Turn right now” and people didn’t interpret that as “make a right turn at the next intersection” they interpreted it as “hard a’starboard!” and drove into buildings and lakes? There’s gonna be a lot of that.

      People are going to get sold regular cab headliners for their extended cab pickups because the computer said it would fit. That’s gonna happen a lot.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I had one tell me that I needed a CVT flush. Which was news to me since my car was a 6spd manual. He was confused about the computer being wrong. I was confused about how they got the car up on the lift without using the 3rd pedal.

      Edit: this was a Midas, not an AutoZone.