Asklemmy

54384 readers

873 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

Is anyone else scared of how fast AI is advancing? (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 days ago by nerdhd@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I genuinely believed that AI this capable wouldn't be feasible in my lifetime.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

How long ago did you try?! Have an example?

I expected it to get this one wrong and it did; I expected that as Hollywood portrays this wrong and people don't have an intuitive understanding of missile rocketry. Interceptor missiles only burn for a few seconds, get going very fast, then coast to their target. It is just flat wrong here.

I then fixed my grammar mistake and asked again, and poof, 100% opposite answer. I literally got the OPPOSITE ANSWER just because I fixed a grammar mistake. This fundamentally cannot be trusted for actual learning.

[–] locuester@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago

I see. It definitely gets thrown off by the perceived confidence in the question, which is made to steer it toward a wrong response. It’s training data likely has far less instances of text that derails the question based on incorrect original assumptions.

Thanks for the response!