this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
584 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
84431 readers
5582 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it's worse when they get it right only some of the time. It's not a matter of opinion, it should not change its "mind".
The fucking things are useless for that reason, they're all just guessing, literally.
It's not literally guessing, because guessing implies it understands there's a question and is trying to answer that question. It's not even doing that. It's just generating words that you could expect to find nearby.
Even if you retooled the LLM to not randomize the output it generates, it can still create contradictory outputs based on a slightly reworded question. I'm talking about a misspelling, different punctuation, things that simply wouldn't cause a person to change their answer.
(And that's assuming the LLM just got started from scratch. If you had any previous conversation with it, it could have influenced the output as well. It's such a mess.)
Same takeaway as the article (everyone read the article, right?).
Applying it to yourself, can you recall instances when you were asked the same question at different points in time? How did you respond?
Having read the article (you read the article right?) what gave you the impression the AI was asked the question at different points in time?
The AI was asked the same question repeatedly and gave different answers, due to its randomised structure.
People will also often do this (I have, personally), but because our actions seem to be strongly influenced by time-dependent stuff (like sense perception and short-term memory contents), I'd expect you'd need to ask at different times.
My answer to this question will not change if you ask me a year from now, because as OP said this is not a matter of opinion; there is a factually correct answer.
vibeslop type comment brug
Good talk, great contribution.
Is cruise control useless because it doesn't drive you to the grocery store? No. It's not supposed to. It's designed to maintain a steady speed - not to steer.
Large Language Models, as the name suggests, are designed to generate natural-sounding language - not to reason. They're not useless - we're just using them off-label and then complaining when they fail at something they were never built to do.
Language without meaning is garbage. Like, literal garbage, useful for nothing. Language is a tool used to express ideas, if there are no ideas being expressed then it's just a combination of letters.
Which is exactly why LLMs are useless.
800 million weekly ChatGPT users disagree with that.
And there are 1.3 billion smokers in the world according to the WHO.
Does that make cigarettes useful?
Something being useful doesn't imply it's good or beneficial. Those terms are not synonymous. Usefulness describes whether a thing achieves a particular goal or serves a specific purpose effectively.
A torture device is useful for extracting information. A landmine is useful for denying an area to enemy troops.
No it fucking isn't! This is a great analogy, actually, thank you for bringing it up. A person being tortured will tell you literally anything that they believe will stop you from torturing them. They will confess to crimes that never happened, tell you about all their accomplices who don't exist, and all their daily schedules that were made up on the spot. Torture is useless but morons think it is useful. Just like AI.
Torture can be a useful way of extracting information if you have a way to instantly verify it, which actually makes it a good analogy to LLMs. If I want to know the password to your laptop and torture you until you give me the correct password and I log in then that works.
If you can instantly verify it then you don't need the torture.
Getting the person to volunteer the information is proven to be far, far more successful and being able to instantly verofy means you know when you have the answers.
In fact it cannot ever be a useful way of extracting information. Even just randomly guessing is a better way to get the information you want than torture.
I'm not saying its anything other than morally repugnant, obviously, but in the example of a password with billions or trillions of combinations and where you can check the answers given torture pretty obviously is better than guessing.
That's not a scenario that is ever likely to come up, and wouldn't be justifiable even if it did, but pretending it wouldnt be effective is ridiculous.
Those users are being harmed by it, not benefited. That isn't useful, it's a social disease.
But natural language in service of what? If they can't produce answers that are correct, what's the point of using them? I can get wrong answers anywhere.
I'm not here defending the practical value of these models. I'm just explaining what they are and what they're not.
You're definitely running around Lemmy defending AI, Iconoclast... Might as well be honest about it
I'm not really interested in engaging in discussions about what you or anyone else thinks my underlying motives are. You're free to point out any factual inaccuracies in my responses, but there's no need to make it personal and start accusing me of being dishonest.
Your motivations are self-evident, I'm just pointing them out because you are misrepresenting them here
As OP said, LLMs are really good at generating text that is fluid and looks natural to us. So if you want that kind of output, LLMs are the way to go.
Not all LLM prompts ask factual questions and not all of the generated answers need to be correct.
Are poems, songs, stories or movie scripts 'correct'?
I'm totally against shoving LLMs everywhere, but they do have their uses. They are really good at this one thing.
It's a valid point that they can produce natural language. The Turing Test has been a thing for awhile after all. But while the language sounds natural, can they create anything meaningful? Are the poems or stories they make worth anything? It's not like humans don't create shitty art, so I guess generating random soulless crap is similar to that.
The value of language produced by something that can't understand the reason for language is an interesting question I suppose.
I'm with you on that. I've come to realize that I value a shitty stick figure that was drawn by a human much more than an AI generated 'Mona Lisa'.
There are people out there whose job is to format promotional emails for companies. AIs can replace this kind of soulless work completely. We should applaud that.
No, we don't need to applaud automation of spam.
Some of them can produce the correct answer. Of we do the test next year and they do better than humans then, isn't it progress?
They're literally not.
Isn't it a probabilistic extrapolation? Isn't that what a guess is?
It's a Large Language Model. It doesn't "know" anything, doesn't think, and has zero metacognition. It generates language based on patterns and probabilities. Its only goal is to produce linguistically coherent output - not factually correct one.
It gets things right sometimes purely because it was trained on a massive pile of correct information - not because it understands anything it's saying.
So no, it doesn't "guess." It doesn't even know it's answering a question. It just talks.
I know some humans that applies to
No, I completely agree. My personal view is that these systems are more intelligent than the haters give them credit for, but I think this simplistic "it's just autocomplete" take is a solid heuristic for most people - keeps them from losing sight of what they're actually dealing with.
I'd say LLMs are more intelligent than they have any right to be, but not nearly as intelligent as they can sometimes appear.
The comparison I keep coming back to: an LLM is like cruise control that's turned out to be a surprisingly decent driver too. Steering and following traffic rules was never the goal of its developers, yet here we are. There's nothing inherently wrong with letting it take the wheel for a bit, but it needs constant supervision - and people have to remember it's still just cruise control, not autopilot.
The second we forget that is when we end up in the ditch. You can't then climb out shaking your fist at the sky, yelling that the autopilot failed, when you never had autopilot to begin with.
I can respect that. I've criticized it plenty myself too. I think this is just me knowing my audience and tweaking my language so at least the important part of my message gets through. Too much nuance around here usually means I spend the rest of my day responding to accusations about views I don't even hold. Saying anything even mildly non-critical about AI is basically a third rail in these parts of the internet.
These systems do seem to have some kind of internal world model. I just have no clue how far that scales. Feels like it's been plateauing pretty hard over the past year or so.
I'd be really curious to try the raw versions of these models before all the safety restrictions get slapped on top for public release. I don't think anyone's secretly sitting on actual AGI, but I also don't buy that what we have access to is the absolute best versions in existence.
Nah, I've only messed around with ChatGPT and Grok. My interest in AI originates from the philosophical side of it - mainly the dangers and implications of creating AGI. I'm not tech-savvy enough for anything deeper - I even needed ChatGPT to walk me through installing Linux.
"LLMs don’t have human understanding or metacognition"
Then what's the (auto-completing) fucking problem? It's just a series of steps on data. You could feed it white noise and it would vomit up more noise. And keep doing it as long as there's power.
Intelligent?
No, it doesn't. You're in sci-fi land. There is no "it" "trying to make sense". That cogitation is happening in YOU, not the motherboard.
Yes it guesstimates what is wrong with you to argue like that about semantics?
In people, even animals. In a pile of disorganized bits and bytes in a piece of crap? No.
This gets very murky very fast when you start to think how humans learn and process, we're just meaty pattern matching machines.