this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
174 points (93.5% liked)

Technology

84274 readers
3022 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] darklamer@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago

I bought a small bag of cheap rice, and it didn't help me to connect to God!

[–] Ironfist79@lemmy.world 34 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

When are people going to realize that an LLM is not a calculator and doesn't actually know anything?

[–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago

That it is not a calculator and is horrible at determinism is not debatable, however its (very biased) huge knowledge is its core feature

[–] weew@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 hours ago

Well first AI tech corporations need to do advertising that AIs can keep doing all this.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Probably never. Just like people never realized how computers work, how networks work, how businesses work, how economies of scale work, how financial markets work, how…

We the people don’t give a shit about how anything works, for the most part. Exceptions include your narrowly focused expertise. We convince ourselves that we understand things, using top-down perspectives, because it’s easier than actually understanding things from a bottom-up perspective.

Even the strongest critics of AI can’t substantively explain how AI works. They use misnomers like “glorified autocomplete” to reason about it’s inaccuracy, rather than understanding the fundamental limitations of the approach used.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 14 points 9 hours ago

imagine that. software that performs strictly language specific operations can't do math.

They are non-deterministic by design.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

LLMs are not detetministic like calculators. Wrong tool for the job.

[–] bluegreenpurplepink@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago

And the US is about to, if they haven't already, put AI in charge of the Internal Revenue Service.

That should be fun.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 17 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I tried to build a deck with my smartphone, it couldn't drive a single nail.

[–] TechAnon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Maybe get a stronger case. 🤷‍♂️😄

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 29 minutes ago

But the guy at the phone store told me it was practically indestructible, I used it practically and it destructable'd.

I'm starting to think this whole 'phone' thing is doomed to failure.

I'm basing this entirely on a single anecdotal evidence and all of the other evidence that I've selected which confirms my worldview on the topic. I have done my own research (but not with a phone).

[–] KatherinaReichelt@feddit.org 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The issue is that there are apps promising you an calorie count via photo.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

There's pills promising to improve my love life also, I don't believe them either

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 27 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Waste of energy. It's like asking a person to estimate a non-trivial angle. Either use a model trained for that task, or don't bother.

[–] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 11 hours ago

The point is that:

  1. It is being used for ut, even though it is obviously not capable of giving a reliable and realistic answer
  2. It allows this usage, even though it is dangerous and not within it's capabilities
  3. Each model gives answers that vary wildly, something that a human wouldn't do. A human wouldn't give you answers that are 10x more for the same question randomly.
[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 26 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

The point is they are advertising that these models can do it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 48 points 18 hours ago (19 children)

It’s the same photo, the same model, the same question. But you won’t get the same answer. Not even close — and the differences are large enough to cause a hypoglycaemic emergency.

OK I wonder if there's something wrong with the photo.
The photo:

WTF!!??
That's like estimating the carbs in 2 slices of standard sandwich bread! Of course not all bread has the same amount of sugar, but a reasonable range based on an average should be a dead easy answer.

I thought the headline sounded crazy, but try to read the article, and it actually becomes worse. I have said it many times before, these AI chatbots should not be legal, they put lives at risk.

[–] inari@piefed.zip 24 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

To be fair there's no way of knowing what the filling is, so the AI may be guessing based on that too

[–] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 27 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Friendly reminder that LLMs don't do math, they guess what number should come next, just like words.

It can probably link the image to the words "a photo of a sandwich on a plate", and interpret the question as "how many calories are in a sandwich" but from there it is just guessing at the syntax of an answer, but not at finding any truth.

It knows sandwiches have calories and those tend to be 3-4 digit numbers, but also all numbers kinda look the same, so what's to say it's not 2, 5, or 12 digits?

[–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago

Tool-powered agents can do math though. The issue is the fuzziness of it trying to guess carbs. It doesn’t know weight, ingredients, or anything other than a picture. These tools can be useful but not for this. Maybe one day but not yet.

Whoever claims an AI (LLM or agents) can do that and charging their users is lying and defrauding them.

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 30 points 17 hours ago

The apps are advertising that they can do this tho. Many of them are aggressively sponsoring YouTubers who advertise you can basically just wave your phone over the food and it takes away all the “work” from traditional calorie counting apps

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 5 points 14 hours ago

Nope, Claude and Gemini both guessed fewer carbs than are in the bread.

[–] PatrickYaa@feddit.org 14 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

But the ai assumes itself infallible, at least it could ask...

[–] inari@piefed.zip 6 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

That's true, it should ask follow-up questions, or at least clarify its assumptions

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 hours ago

Custom built LLMs are awesome for specific purposes in terms of dealing with data and providing resources however chatbots ain't that.

Humans want to follow whatever makes sense to them, they use AI because it's confident. AI just replaced their god.

[–] magnue@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

If you supplied humans with the same image and asked for the same estimate I'd be curious to know the difference in results.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

Mine would be: "I have no idea" - An answer the LLMs generally refuse to give by their nature (usually declining to answer is rooted in something in the context indicating refusing to answer being the proper text).

If you really pressed them, they'd probably google each thing and sum the results, so the estimates would be as consistent as first google results.

LLMs have a tendency to emit a plausible answer without regard for facts one way or the other. We try to steer things by stuffing the context with facts roughly based on traditional 'fact' based measures, but if the context doesn't have factual data to steer the output, the output is purely based on narrative consistency rather than data consistency. It may even do that if the context has fact based content in it sometimes.

load more comments
view more: next ›