Comment

Comment on Gemini wont talk about Bernie Sanders

To be honest, that seems like it should be the one thing they are reliably good at. It requires just looking up info on their database, with no manipulation.

Obviously that’s not the case, but that’s just because currently LLMs are a grift to milk billions from corporations by using the buzzwords that corporate middle management relies on to make it seem like they are doing any work. Relying on modern corporate FOMO to get them to buy a terrible product that they absolutely don’t need at exorbitant contract prices just to say they’re using the “latest and greatest” technology.

source

Sort:hotnew top

SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
To be honest, that seems like it should be the one thing they are reliably good at. It requires just looking up info on their database, with no manipulation.

That’s not how they are designed at all. LLMs are just text predictors. If the user inputs something like “A B C D E F” then the next most likely word would be “G”.

Companies like OpenAI will try to add context to make things seem smarter, like prime it with the current date so it won’t just respond with some date it was trained on, or look for info on specific people or whatnot, but at its core, they are just really big auto fill text predictors.

source
DrFistington@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Yeah, I still struggle to see the appeal of Chatbot LLMs. So it’s like a search engine, but you can’t see it’s sources, and sometimes it ‘hallucinates’ and gives straight up incorrect information. My favorite was a few months ago I was searching Google for why my cat was chewing on plastic. Like halfway through the AI response at the top of the results it started going on a tangent about how your cat may be bored and enjoys to watch you shop, lol

So basically it makes it easier to get a quick result if you’re not able to quickly and correctly parse through Google results… But the answer you get may be anywhere from zero to a hundred percent correct. And you don’t really get double check the sources without further questioning the chat bot. Oh and LLM AI models have been shown to intentionally lie and mislead when confronted with inaccuracies they’ve given.

source
- tal@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  
  Yeah, I still struggle to see the appeal of Chatbot LLMs.
  
  I think that one major application is to avoid having humans on support sites. Some people aren’t willing or able or something to search a site for information, but they can ask human-language questions. I’ve seen a ton of companies with AI-driven support chatbots.
  
  There’s sexy chatbots. What I’ve seen of them hasn’t really impressed me, but you don’t always need an amazing performance to keep an aroused human happy. I do remember, back when I was much younger, trying to gently tell a friend who had spent multiple days chatting with “the sysadmin’s sister” on a BBS that he’d been talking to a chatbot – and that’s a lot simpler than current systems. There’s probably real demand, though I think that this is going to become commodified pretty quickly.
  
  There’s the “works well with voice control” aspect that I mentioned above. That’s a real thing today, especially when, say, driving a car.
  
  It’s just not – certainly not in 2025 – a general replacement for Web search for me.
  
  I can also imagine some ways to improve it down the line. Like, okay, one obvious point that you raise is that if a human can judge the reliability of information on a website, that human having access to the website is useful. I feel like I’ve got pretty good heuristics for that. Not perfect – I certainly can get stuff wrong – but probably better than current LLMs do.
  
  But…a number of people must be really appallingly awful at this. People would not be watching conspiracy theory material on wacky websites if they had a great ability to evaluate it. It might be possible to have a bot that has solid-enough heuristics that it filters out or deprioritizes sources based on reliability. A big part of what Web search does today is to do that – it wants to get a relevant result to you in the top few results, and filter out the dreck. I bet that there’s a lot of room to improve on that. Like, say I’m viewing a page of forum text. Google’s PageRank or similar can’t treat different content on the page as having different reliability, because it can only choose to send you to the page or not at some priority. But an AI training system can, say, profile individual users for reliability on a forum, and get a finer-grained response to a user. Maybe a Reddit thread has material from User A who the ranking algorithm doesn’t consider reliable, and User B who it does.
  
  source