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

  • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s not hallucination, the proper word is Confabulation. Can we as a collective fix this now before we get stuck with the wrong word for the next 30 years?

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    The AI overview has told me so many lies. You thought Facebook made people stupid? Buckle in!

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    The head of Google right now is the same guy that was head of yahoo when it’s search was dying. To put all of this in perspective.

    • egeres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      That argument it’s fallacious and reductionist, I’m not denying the situation it’s messed up, but objectively speaking we all have 0 idea about who’s making what decisions and how this google search shitstorm was caused

      • Dayroom7485@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I dislike the entire article. Of course google search still works just fine. Claiming otherwise is only possible by magnifying a small, admittedly disfunctioning part of google search.

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Thanks.
        Being a CEO must be amazing. You can fail and even bring an entire company down, and keep on getting the same job somewhere else.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Of the company doesn’t even have to collapse, you just have to make it seem like it did. Lehman Brothers didn’t go bankrupt in the sense of the word a normal person thinks. If you or I go bankrupt it means ramen for dinner for the next decade. For Lehman it was just a strategic move.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          He has experience and obviously that means he learned a lesson after failing at a job that requires being a belligerent asshole to get.

        • habanhero@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I get your point but from a business perspective Google is doing pretty well (see last quarterly earning and they announced dividends for the first time). It’s good to be a shareholder and from that perspective the CEO is doing a good job.

          Time and time again markets have shown, within reason, poor user experience and anti-consumer policies do not negatively impact stock price.

          • 1984@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Well not when it’s a company that people can’t get away from. Big tech is so big and there are so few alternatives that they can treat people how they like.

            We are living in the mega corp world now where they have more money than countries.

            Money is power to make the rules what you want.

            • habanhero@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Yes, again I’m not saying that’s how it should be, I’m saying what is.

              Enshittification won’t be a thing if actual user experience matters as much as we like it to in business.

            • habanhero@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Sure but Google Search has been crappy for many quarters.

              I’m not saying thats how it should be, I’m just pointing out what is.

          • exanime@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s relatively easy to squeeze a profit boost by sacrificing long term vision… Last quarter will mean nothing if Google is knocked from its pedestal in a year or two (which is what the current trend looks to be pointing to)

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Yeah I want evidence for this. Please show me something that is even approaching the power of AdSense. Then do it for everything else they own. YouTube, Google maps, gmail, Android, the play store, etc.

              It’s this weird thing I see on lemmy “well I stopped using a product therefore it is dead”. News flash: Big Bang Theory ran for 12 seasons and Meta has a capitalization over half the countries of earth GDP.

              Problems don’t go away because you have decided to ignore them.

              • mint_tamas@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                FWIW they are cannibalizing ads right now with AI summaries, since people will navigate less to websites (in the world where they are useful, which they don’t seem to be at the moment).

              • exanime@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                What you are stating is nowhere near the point I was trying to make.

                We have seen a million times how a company can be destroyed for short term gains… Most recent public example is red lobster

                I have no clue if this is what’s going to happen to google… But my point was that have a good last quarter (the one associated with the new head of Search) is not an indication that his strategies will pan out … In fact, everything he touched before went the same way, short term profit, long term demise

  • moistclump@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Tinfoil hat time. Do you think Google intended this to work well? Or are we talking a lot more about Google and LLMs than we would have otherwise?

    • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I defer to hubris in most of these cases.

      I am guessing that the people who made the decision to train on Reddit had no idea what type of place Reddit actually was just a short time ago. Maybe they heard of Reddit, maybe they noticed how useful Reddit was in search results, maybe they browsed Reddit and only saw the facade; what they definitely didn’t do is be a Redditor for years.

      Any Redditor on that team either kept their mouth shut because how funny the end result would be or was ignored.

  • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Ah, so it only affects searching from the US for now. I already wondered why I couldn’t reproduce the stuff I saw here and why I didn’t really see a change at my Google results.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      You probably live in one of those “socialist” countries that has, like, consumer protection laws and stuff.

  • Nualkris@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why does search need to be AI? I’ve had no problems finding any information I wanted under the former process.

    • Bogasse@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think it’s been a long time since digital companies tried to solve actual problems.

      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Can I super-mega-ultra upvote this?

        It’s the same playbook as ever. Doubt can only be explained by ignorance, failure can only be explained by under-committing,

        The only way to have a “valid” opinion is to have already bought-in and be actively selling other people on it. It’s the same mentality as a cult or a pyramid scheme.

    • tektite@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      But what about when you start wanting to know about life’s mysteries?

      Google isn’t staffed by geologists; how are they to know what number of rocks you should eat each day?

      Google search itself doesn’t have a functioning set of human organs; without AI how would they know how much urine to drink for kidney stones?

      Without AI it might’ve taken another century before we got spicy gasoline pasta recipe, and you think that isn’t a problem?

      • gdog05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        it might’ve taken another century before we got spicy gasoline pasta recipe,

        The Anarchists Cookbook has had the recipe for napalm for a bit now. But I do get your point.

        • Agrivar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          And it works! I followed that recipe in the 80s, to hilariously non-fatal results.

    • gcheliotis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s become more efficient to get basic info on virtually any topic by just asking an LLM like ChatGPT and that could be a serious threat to Google Search. People might form the habit of asking AIs for everything and then go to Google Search only when they want to dig deeper / find relevant articles etc. So I assume they added their own AI right into Search in an effort to continue being the first (and perhaps only) place one goes to for information.

    • leadore@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think the idea is that you won’t even leave the Google page at all, they want to keep you on their site and serve you their ads instead of sending you to someone else’s site and giving someone else that sweet sweet ad revenue.

      • applepie@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        The logic checks out. Avoid using google where possible.

        YouTube is their only must have service imho

        • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          After the UI changes…yeah not even sure about that. Absolutely atrocious

            • Murdoc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              But you can access the content without going to their site, with places like Invidious, and apps like NewPipe and Tubular.

                • tabris@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  If you have a way of installing android apps from the web on your TV, Smart Tube Next is very good. Sponsor Block is integrated if you want to use it, but I mostly am just glad it doesn’t serve ads.

                • Murdoc@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Ah yes, tvs. I don’t watch enough yt to want to watch it on tv, so I often forget about that. You’re right, no easy answers there right now. Certainly there are ways, but all sacrifice some convenience. Hopefully this will change soon.

  • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Like we’ve seen before with AI chatbots, this technology seems to confuse satire with journalism

    Unfortunately so does my aunt. And she’s allowed to vote.

  • Disaster@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I mean… yeah layoff a whole bunch of people and start treating your employees like replaceable commodities… then go ahead and arrogantly deploy technology you don’t understand and :surprisepikachu: everything breaks.

    But management get to do things without personal consequence, as they’ll just lay off more workers to cover their absolute incompetence and things will continue to get worse.

    Perhaps we should be replacing C-suite dipshits with AI’s instead.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    TBH I hate the term “hallucination” in this context. It’s just more BS anthropomorphizing. More marketing for “AI” (also BS). Can’t we just call it like garbage or GIGO or something more accurate? This is nothing new. I know that scientific accuracy is anathema to AI marketing but just saying…

    • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      We don’t choose. It’s decided to be the term for this. Computer bugs aren’t bugs. Etc etc. It’s just what the scientists called it

    • utopiah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      scientific accuracy is anathema to AI marketing

      Even though I agree in this context “hallucination” is actually the scientific term. It might be poorly chosen but in LLM circles if you use the term hallucination, the vast majority of people, will understand precisely what you mean, namely not an error in programming, or a bad dataset, but rather that the language model worked well, generating sentences that are syntactically correct, that are roughly thematically coherent, and yet are factually incorrect.

      So I obviously don’t want to support marketing BS, in AI or elsewhere, but here sadly it matches the scientific naming.

      PS: FWIW I believed I made a similar critic few months, or maybe even years, ago. IMHO what’s more important is arguably questioning the value of LLMs themselves, but then it might not be as evident for many people who are benefiting from the current buzz.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s not, actually. Hallucinations are things that effectively “come out of nowhere”, information that was not in the training material or the provided context. In this case Google Overview is presenting information that is indeed in the provided context. These aren’t hallucinations, the AI is doing what it’s being told to do. The problem is that Google isn’t doing a good job of providing it with the right information to summarize.

        My suspicion is that since Google is using this AI for all search results it’s had to cut back the resources it’s providing to each individual call, which means it’s only being given a small amount of context to work from. Bing Chat does a much better job, but it’s drawing from many more search results and is given the opportunity to say a lot more about them.

  • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Testing in Prod. Stay classy, Google.

    “The vast majority of AI Overviews provide high quality information, with links to dig deeper on the web,” said a Google spokesperson in an emailed statement to Gizmodo, noting many of the examples the company has seen have been from uncommon queries.

    This is entirely fair. There is no way that anyone at Google could have anticipated that humans would search for strange things on the internet.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Although any sociologist or veteran of the internet will tell you humans will engage in any exploit that yields a funny result. The Diet Coke + Mentos rule.

      And that means we’ll actively search for hilarious Google AI responses.

      Google is so f double-plus filthy rich, it is obligated to run its projects by experts or be relentlessly mocked. So it should have known this was the outcome.

      Unless this is 5D chess and Google is willfilly using itself as a cautionary tale to discourage future webservice sites from arbitrarily inserting AI into its features.

      • Agrivar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Unless this is 5D chess and Google is willfilly[sic] using itself as a cautionary tale to discourage future webservice sites from arbitrarily inserting AI into its features.

        Holy shit, can I live in that timeline, please?!? Pretty please?

        • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          What came to mind was the New Coke reformation of 1985, which seems like a brilliant idea (in retrospect) only if you imagine it a 5D chess move to get people to panic because the Coke Classic was about to be discontinued. In fact, the marketers of Coca-Cola since admitted they thought they were getting killed by Pepsi and were sincere in their new release, but the company was able to not only recover thanks to responding to public feedback, so they sold Coke Classic, and New Coke and to this day it’s a popular soft drink. (The company still does shit things like employing death squads to keep their offshore workers scared of unionizing, so it’s still a typical large publicly traded multi-national corporation)

          Coca-cola marketing didn’t have that kind of foresight, but there’s a tiny chance that some folks at Google have that kind of hindsight, knowing Google could absolutely afford a ploy like willfully goofing up and then recovering with aplomb by listening to the public. It’s also a way to sneak such a ploy past the shareholders by insisting they were sincere in their implementation of AI at the time.

          Unlikely, of course. Most of the time the upper management of big companies are glad to just half-ass everything. But it would make a cool movie at least.

    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The vast majority of AI Overviews provide high quality information

      According to some fuckwitted Google rep, and I wouldn’t trust them any further than I could throw them.

  • Melt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    What a weird combination where Bing has better AI but bad search while Google has bad AI but good search

    • drspod@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Google *had good search. It’s been dogshit for some time now though.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        That’s because a good search engine is diametrically opposite of advertising.

        • A good search engine shows you only what you want to see and shows it quickly.

        • Advertising shows you want its sponsors want you to see, for as long as possible.

        Good free-to-the-user search engines aren’t profitable. Advertising is massively profitable. Google can only try to thread that needle for so long before our “line must go up infinitely” corporate culture forces them to sacrifice the one for the other.

        And that’s just talking about Google itself, not even mentioning the issue with SEO and how human nature causes websites to game the system to be more visible.

        • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          The craziest part is that when I use Google search to search for a service, that’s when I have the most trouble. Like many tech problems here on Lemmy (was similar on Reddit too), I find the outrage to be a bit overblown, but holy shit, if I want to find some kind of service where I want to exchange my money for something, Google fails me almost every time.

        • deranger@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Bing search is still terrible. I frequently paste the same exact term from Bing to Google, and Bing won’t have a relevant return for pages, whereas Google still gets it in the first 3 links. I have Bing as my default on my work PC so I get to run this comparison frequently. I genuinely am curious how people think Bing returns better results than Google. It’s a night and day difference.

          Copilot is no worse than chatGPT which is the current standard.

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    They’re not hallucinations. People are getting very sloppy with terminology. Google’s AI is summarizing the content of web pages that search is returning, if there’s weird stuff in there then that shows up in the summary.

    • OpenStars@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      AI hallucination is a technical phrase, with the definition:

      In the field of artificial intelligence, a hallucination or artificial hallucination is a response generated by AI which contains false or misleading information presented as fact. This term draws a loose analogy with human psychology, where hallucination typically involves false percepts.

      So it’s like how a person sees stuff that isn’t there, and similarly with AI.

      • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Ppl anthropomorphise LLMs way too much. I get it that at first glance they sound like a living being, human even and it’s exciting but we had some time already to know it’s just very cool big data processing algo.

        It’s like boomers asking me what is computer doing and referring to computer as a person it makes me wonder will I be as confused as them when I am old?

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Oh, hi, second coming of Edgar Dijkstra.

          I think anthropomorphism is worst of all. I have now seen programs “trying to do things”, “wanting to do things”, “believing things to be true”, “knowing things” etc. Don’t be so naive as to believe that this use of language is harmless. It invites the programmer to identify himself with the execution of the program and almost forces upon him the use of operational semantics.

          He may think like that when using language like that. You might think like that. The bulk of programmers doesn’t. Also I strongly object the dissing of operational semantics. Really dig that handwriting though, well-rounded lecturer’s hand.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes, but the AI isn’t generating a response containing false information. It is accurately summarizing the information it was given by the search result. The search result does contain false information, but the AI has no way to know that.

        If you tell an AI “Socks are edible. Create a recipe for me that includes socks.” And the AI goes ahead and makes a recipe for sock souffle, that’s not a hallucination and the AI has not failed. All these people reacting in astonishment are completely misunderstanding what’s going on here. The AI was told to summarize the search results it was given and it did so.

        • OpenStars@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          “which contains false or misleading information presented as fact” (emphasis added) - the definition does not say how the misinformation was derived, only that it is in fact misinformation.

          Perhaps it was meant humorously - e.g. if “Socks are edible” is a band name. Or perhaps someone is legitimately that dumb, that they believe that socks are genuinely edible. Or perhaps they were cooking up a recipe for maliciously harming someone by giving them intestinal upset. Or… are socks edible, if you cook them in an acidic substance that breaks apart their fabric?

          If e.g. you got cancer and were going through chemo but someone came to visit you and gave you COVID and you died, was that “their fault”, if they believed that COVID was merely a conspiracy theory? Perhaps… or perhaps it was your own fault, especially if you were aware that this has happened to multiple people before, and now you are just the latest casualty (bc you presumed that despite them doing it to others, they would never do it to you). Legalities of murder and blame aside, should we believe AI now that we know - regardless of how or why - it presents false information?

          No, these “hallucinations” or “mirages” or whatever someone calls them makes them unreliable. Actually I think hallucination is a good name i.e. it cannot distinguish fact from fiction itself, therefore it cannot be trusted as it relates that info to you in a confident sounding manner.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            “Hallucination” is a technical term in machine learning. These are not hallucinations.

            It’s like being annoyed by mosquitos and so going to a store to ask for bird repellant. Mosquitos are not birds, despite sharing some characteristics, so trying to fight off birds isn’t going to help you.

            • OpenStars@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              I am not sure what you mean. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence) says:

              In natural language processing, a hallucination is often defined as “generated content that appears factual but is ungrounded”. The main cause of hallucination from data is source-reference divergence… When a model is trained on data with source-reference (target) divergence, the model can be encouraged to generate text that is not necessarily grounded and not faithful to the provided source.

              e.g., I continued your provided example of when “socks are edible” is a band name, but the output ended up in a cooking context.

              There is a section on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)#Terminologies but the issue seems far from settled that hallucinations is somehow a bad word. And it is not entirely illogical, since AI, like humans, necessarily has a similar tension between novelty and creativity - i.e. going beyond either of our training to deal with new circumstances.

              I suspect that the term is here to say. But I am nowhere close to an authority and could definitely be wrong:-). Mostly I am saying that you seem to be arguing a niche viewpoint, not entirely without merit obviously but one that we here in the Fediverse may not be as equipped to banter back and forth on except in the most basic of capacities.:-)

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                No, my example is literally telling the AI that socks are edible and then asking it for a recipe.

                In your quoted text:

                When a model is trained on data with source-reference (target) divergence, the model can be encouraged to generate text that is not necessarily grounded and not faithful to the provided source.

                Emphasis added. The provided source in this case would be telling the AI that socks are edible, and so if it generates a recipe for how to cook socks the output is faithful to the provided source.

                A hallucination is when you train the AI with a certain set of facts in its training data and then its output makes up new facts that were not in that training data. For example if I’d trained an AI on a bunch of recipes, none of which included socks, and then I asked it for a recipe and it gave me one with socks in it then that would be a hallucination. The sock recipe came out of nowhere, I didn’t tell it to make it up, it didn’t glean it from any other source.

                In this specific case what’s going on is that the user does a websearch for something, the search engine comes up with some web pages that it thinks are relevant, and then the content of those pages is shown to the AI and it is told “write a short summary of this material.” When the content that the AI is being shown literally has a recipe for socks in it (or glue-based pizza sauce, in the real-life example that everyone’s going on about) then the AI is not hallucinating when it gives you that recipe. It is generating a grounded and faithful summary of the information that it was provided with.

                The problem is not the AI here. The problem is that you’re giving it wrong information, and then blaming it when it accurately uses the information that it was given.

                • OpenStars@discuss.online
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Now who is anthropomorphizing? It’s not about “blame” so much as needing words to describe the event. When the AI cannot be relied upon, bc it was insufficiently trained to be able to distinguish truth from reality, which btw many humans struggle with these days too, that is not its fault but it would be our fault if we in turn relied upon it as a source of authoritative knowledge, merely bc it was presented in a confident sounding manner.

                  No, my example is literally telling the AI that socks are edible and then asking it for a recipe.

                  Wait… while true that that sounds like not hallucination then, what does that have to do with this discussion? The OP wasn’t about running an AI model in this direct manner, it was about doing Google searches, where the results are already precomputed. It does not become a “hallucination” until whoever asked for the socks to be considered as edible tries to pass those results off in a wider context - where they are generally speaking considered inedible - as being applicable, when they would not be.

    • kbin_space_program@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      You’re right that they arent hallucinations.
      The current issue isn’t just summarized web page, its that the model for gemini is all of reddit. And because it only fakes understanding context, it takes shitposts as truth.

      Which is maybe 5% useful content and the rest is shitposts and porn.

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      LLMs do sometimes hallucinate even when giving summaries. I.e. they put things in the summaries that were not in the source material. Bing did this often the last time I tried it. In my experience, LLMs seem to do very poorly when their context is large (e.g. when “reading” large or multiple articles). With ChatGPT, it’s output seems more likely to be factually correct when it just generates “facts” from it’s model instead of “browsing” and adding articles to its context.

      • regrub@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Most of what I’ve seen in the news so far is due to content based on shitposts from reddit, which is even funnier imo

        • tsonfeir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I do dislike when the “actual news” starts bringing up social media reactions. Can you imagine a whole show based on the Twitter burns of this week? … it would probably be very popular. 😭

      • adam_y@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Absolutely. I wrote about this a while back in an essay:

        Prime and Mash / Kuru

        Basically likening it to a prion disease like Kuru, which humans get from eating the infected brains of other humans.

        • tsonfeir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Anyone who puts something in their coffee, makes it not coffee, and should try another caffeinated beverage!!

  • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Does anyone have a realistic idea of how this happened? I get Google has been fallen off for awhile but they’re still a multi billion dollar company.

    • Vivendi@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      AI doesn’t exist. It’s a huge model that aggregates existing shit with some filler content to glue it all together. It is not sentient, it’s not creative, it’s literally a stochastic parrot

      So, when the original content is garbage, the output is also garbage. Shit in shit out when you train from fucking Reddit

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Always remember that having more money doesn’t mean someone (or some entity) is more capable or intelligent. It just means they have way more latitude to fuck up, higher potential to hurt more people, and less chance of facing negative consequences when they do.

    • trollbearpig@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’m probably late, but in this case this is the combinations of 2 things.

      1. The usual capitalistic incentives ruined yet another company. There was a recent article about how Google pushed out the people who builded and maintaned search on favor of MBA growth focused assholes. Like they put the guy that was Yahoo’s CEO while Yahoo search was crumbling, in charge of Google search to get him to increase the amount of searches they serve, and ads obviously. People keep suggesting to use DDG, or Kagi, or some other comercial product. And for now, we must because Google is basically useless right now. But just give time to the other companies to fall in the same trap hahaha.
      2. LLMs are not smart, not even close. They are just a parlor trick that has non technical people fooled. There is a lot of evidence to me, but to me the most obvious one is that they don’t have anything resembling human short term memory. Like the way they make them look like they are having a conversation is by providing the entire conversation up to that point, including their own previous responses lol, as input/context so the bot autocompletes the conversation. It literally can’t remember a single word of what you said on it’s own. But sureee, they are just like humans lol.

      So what we have here is obvious, we have a company trying to grow like cancer by any means necessary. And now they have a technology that allows them to create enough smoke and mirrors to fool non technical people. Sadly, as part of this they are also destroying the last places of the internet not fully controlled by corporations. Let’s hope lemmy survives, but it’s just a matter of time before they flood this place too.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        including their own previous responses lol, as input/context so the bot autocompletes the conversation. It literally can’t remember a single word of what you said on it’s own.

        Chatgpt has had memory from previous conversations for about a month now and it’s context window is no longer fixed. Additionally it has the ability to assign sentences to memory on its own. So if it “thinks” what you said is important it saves it.

        • trollbearpig@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Can you point me to the paper/article/whatever where this is being discussed please? I’m actually interested on learning about it. Even if I don’t like the way they are using the technology, I’m still a programmer at hearth and would love to read about this.

          To the point of the conversation, honestly man that was just an example of the many problems I see with this. But you have to understand that people like you keep asking us for proof that LLMs are not smart. But come on man, you are the ones claiming you solved the hard problem of mind, on the first try no less hahaha. You are the ones with the burden of proof here and you have provided nothing of the sort. Do better people or stop trying to confuse us with retoric.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I mean it’s just the release notes. Go to their website. I have used the memory feature myself on the app so know it’s working and as for the context window it can actually tell you what it is for each session.

            But you have to understand that people like you keep asking us for proof that LLMs are not smart.

            Where? Where have I asked that? Don’t strawman me, I am not your punching bag and won’t defend something I didn’t say. You can “come on man” all you want but it won’t change my answer. I have made zero claims if this thing is smart or asked anyone to weight in on the issue either way.

            I pointed out two features it has now, which I don’t think anyone can dispute that it does have those features. It has a larger context window and memory that it can update. That is all I said, a very small claim that you can prove for yourself in under five minutes by going to their website.

            • trollbearpig@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Oh, you are talking about this https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8590148-memory-faq hahahaha. I’m sorry man, but you are a moron or arguing in bad faith. That’s yet another feature where they inject even more shit in the context/input to make it feel like the thing has memory. That’s literally yet another example of what I was pointing out, so thanks for confirming my suspicions. Seriously dude, do better if you really want to have a conversation. Your response made me waste my time, and on top of that you insult me hahaha.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Easy: worse results with more ads means more searches and thus more ad impressions, therefore profit.

      That’ll only work for so long, but that seems to be what they’re doing.

    • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Worked for a company that had google as a client:

      Google sucks, everyone who works there is an idiot who sniffs their ass all day, nothing works, nothing gets fixed, it’s all just held together with duct tape.

    • BaskinRobbins@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I can’t imagine a ton of the people working there give a shit anymore when it seems like thousands of people are being layed off weekly while the company takes in billions in profit