- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Worked well for me
What is that font bro…
Its called sweetpea and my sweatpea picked it out for me. How dare I stick with something my girl picked out for me.
But the fact that you actually care what font someone else uses is sad
Chill bro it’s a joke 💀. It’s like when someone uses comic sans as a font.
Ohh.
You’re shrodingers douchebag
Got it
Reality:
The AI was trained to answer 3 to this question correctly.
Wait until the AI gets burned on a different question. Skeptics will rightfully use it to criticize LLMs for just being stochastic parrots, until LLM developers teach their models to answer it correctly, then the AI bros will use it as a proof it becoming “more and more human like”.
No but see they’re not skeptics, they’re just haters, and there is no valid criticism of this tech. Sorry.
And also youve just been banned from like twenty places tor being A FANATIC “anti ai shill”. Genuinely check the mod log, these fuckers are cultists.
When we see LLMs struggling to demonstrate an understanding of what letters are in each of the tokens that it emits or understand a word when there are spaces between each letter, we should compare it to a human struggling to understand a word written in IPA format (/sʌtʃ əz ðɪs/) even though we can understand the word spoken aloud normally perfectly fine.
But if you’ve learned IPA you can read it just fine
I know IPA but I can’t read English text written in pure IPA as fast as I can read English text written normally. I think this is the case for almost anyone who has learned the IPA and knows English.
We gotta raise the bar, so they keep struggling to make it “better”
My attempt
0000000000000000 0000011111000000 0000111111111000 0000111111100000 0001111111111000 0001111111111100 0001111111111000 0000011111110000 0000111111000000 0001111111100000 0001111111100000 0001111111100000 0001111111100000 0000111111000000 0000011110000000 0000011110000000Btw, I refuse to give my money to AI bros, so I don’t have the “latest and greatest”
Tested on ChatGPT o4-mini-high
It sent me this
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0I asked it to remove the spaces
0001111100000000 0011111111000000 0011111110000000 0111111111100000 0111111111110000 0011111111100000 0001111111000000 0011111100000000 0111111111100000 1111111111110000 1111111111110000 1111111111110000 1111111111110000 0011100111000000 0111000011100000 1111000011110000I guess I just murdered a bunch of trees and killed a random dude with the water it used, but it looks good
I just murdered a bunch of trees and killed a random dude with the water it used, but it looks good
Tech bros: “Worth it!”
It’s a pretty big problem, but as long as governments don’t do shit then we’re pretty much fucked.
Either we take the train and contribute to the problem, or we don’t but get left behind, and end up being the harmed one.
I really like checking these myself to make sure it’s true. I WAS NOT DISAPPOINTED!
(Total Rs is 8. But the LOGIC ChatGPT pulls out is ……. remarkable!)
“Let me know if you’d like help counting letters in any other fun words!”
Oh well, these newish calls for engagement sure take on ridiculous extents sometimes.
This is deepseek model right? OP was posting about GPT o3
Yes this is a small(ish) offline deepseek model
Next step how many r in Lollapalooza
Incredible
Agi lost
LLMs are not AGI tough.
Henceforth, AGI should be called “almost general intelligence”
To clarify: in that it’s almost general, not that it’s almost intelligence.
Apparently, this robot is japanese.
I’m going to hell for laughing at that
Obligatory ‘lore dump’ on the word lollapalooza:
That word was a common slang term in the 1930s/40s American lingo that meant… essentially a very raucous, lively party.
Note/Rant on the meaning of this term
The current merriam webster and dictionary.com definitions of this term meaning ‘an outstanding or exceptional or extreme thing’ are wrong, they are too broad.
While historical usage varied, it almost always appeared as a noun describing a gathering of many people, one that was so lively or spectacular that you would be exhausted after attending it.
When it did not appear as a noun describing a lively, possibly also ‘star-studded’ or extravagant, party, it appeared as a term for some kind of action that would cause you to be bamboozled, discombobulated… similar to ‘that was a real humdinger of a blahblah’ or ‘that blahblah was a real doozy’… which ties into the effects of having been through the ‘raucous party’ meaning of lolapalooza.
So… in WW2, in the Pacific theatre… many US Marines were often engaged in brutal, jungle combat, often at night, and they adopted a system of basically verbal identification challenge checks if they noticed someone creeping up on their foxholes at night.
An example of this system used in the European theatre, I believe by the 101st and 82nd airborne, was the challenge ‘Thunder!’ to which the correct response was ‘Flash!’.
In the Pacific theatre… the Marines adopted a challenge / response system… where the correct response was ‘Lolapalooza’…
Because native born Japanese speakers are taught a phoneme that is roughly in between and ‘r’ and an ‘l’ … and they very often struggle to say ‘Lolapalooza’ without a very noticable accent, unless they’ve also spent a good deal of time learning spoken English (or some other language with distinct ‘l’ and ‘r’ phonemes), which very few Japanese did in the 1940s.
racist and nsfw historical example of / evidence for this
Now, some people will say this is a total myth, others will say it is not.
My Grandpa who served in the Pacific Theatre during WW2 told me it did happen, though he was Navy and not a Marine… but the other stories about this I’ve always heard that say it did happen, they all say it happened with the Marines.
My Grandpa is also another source for what ‘lolapalooza’ actually means.
I’m still puzzled by the idea of what mess this war was if at times you had someone still not clearly identifiable, but that close you can do a sheboleth check on them, and that at any moment you or the other could be shot dead.
Also, the current conflict of Russia vs Ukraine seems to invent ukrainian ‘паляница’ as a check, but as I had no connection to actual ukrainians and their UAF, I can’t say if that’s not entirely localized to the internet.
Have you ever been to a very dense jungle or forest… at midnight?
Ok, now, drop mortar and naval artillery shells all over it.
For weeks, or months.
The holes this creates are commonly used by both sides as cover and concealment.
Also, its often raining, sometimes quite heavily, such that these holes will up with water, and you are thus soaking wet.
Ok, now, add in pillboxes and bunkers, as well as a few spiderwebs of underground tunnel networks, many of which have concealed entrances.
You do not have a phone. GPS does not exist.
You might have a map, which is out of date, and you might have a compass, if you didn’t drop or break it.
A radio is either something stationary, or is the size and weight of approximately, somewhat less than a miniature refrigerator, and one bullet or good piece of shrapnel will take it out of commission.
Ok, now, you and all your buddies are either half starving or actually starving, beyond exhausted, getting maybe an average of 2 to 4 hours of sleep, and you, and the enemy, are covered in dirt, blood and grime.
Also, you and everyone else may or may not have malaria, or some other fun disease, so add shit and vomit to the mix of what everyone is covered in.
Ok! Enjoy your 2 to 8 week long camping trip from hell, in these conditions… also, kill everyone that is trying to kill you, soldier.
It’s weird foot soldiers kept killing each other.
It’s not weird we had ‘frag’ as a verb from the Vietnam war.
Look at how they suppressed the christmas truce.
It’s funny how people always quickly point out that an LLM wasn’t made for this, and then continue to shill it for use cases it wasn’t made for either (The “intelligence” part of AI, for starters)
LLM wasn’t made for this
There’s a thought experiment that challenges the concept of cognition, called The Chinese Room. What it essentially postulates is a conversation between two people, one of whom is speaking Chinese and getting responses in Chinese. And the first speaker wonders “Does my conversation partner really understand what I’m saying or am I just getting elaborate stock answers from a big library of pre-defined replies?”
The LLM is literally a Chinese Room. And one way we can know this is through these interactions. The machine isn’t analyzing the fundamental meaning of what I’m saying, it is simply mapping the words I’ve input onto a big catalog of responses and giving me a standard output. In this case, the problem the machine is running into is a legacy meme about people miscounting the number of "r"s in the word Strawberry. So “2” is the stock response it knows via the meme reference, even though a much simpler and dumber machine that was designed to handle this basic input question could have come up with the answer faster and more accurately.
When you hear people complain about how the LLM “wasn’t made for this”, what they’re really complaining about is their own shitty methodology. They build a glorified card catalog. A device that can only take inputs, feed them through a massive library of responses, and sift out the highest probability answer without actually knowing what the inputs or outputs signify cognitively.
Even if you want to argue that having a natural language search engine is useful (damn, wish we had a tool that did exactly this back in August of 1996, amirite?), the implementation of the current iteration of these tools is dogshit because the developers did a dogshit job of sanitizing and rationalizing their library of data. Also, incidentally, why Deepseek was running laps around OpenAI and Gemini as of last year.
Imagine asking a librarian “What was happening in Los Angeles in the Summer of 1989?” and that person fetching you back a stack of history textbooks, a stack of Sci-Fi screenplays, a stack of regional newspapers, and a stack of Iron-Man comic books all given equal weight? Imagine hearing the plot of the Terminator and Escape from LA intercut with local elections and the Loma Prieta earthquake.
That’s modern LLMs in a nutshell.
a much simpler and dumber machine that was designed to handle this basic input question could have come up with the answer faster and more accurately
The human approach could be to write a (python) program to count the number of characters precisely.
When people refer to agents, is this what they are supposed to be doing? Is it done in a generic fashion or will it fall over with complexity?
No, this isn’t what ‘agents’ do, ‘agents’ just interact with other programs. So like move your mouse around to buy stuff, using the same methods as everything else.
Its like a fancy diversely useful diversely catastrophic hallucination prone API.
‘agents’ just interact with other programs.
If that other program is, say, a python terminal then can’t LLMs be trained to use agents to solve problems outside their area of expertise?
I just tested chatgpt to write a python program to return the frequency of letters in a string, then asked it for the number of L’s in the longest placename in Europe.
‘’‘’
String to analyze
text = “Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch”
Convert to lowercase to count both ‘L’ and ‘l’ as the same
text = text.lower()
Dictionary to store character frequencies
frequency = {}
Count characters
for char in text: if char in frequency: frequency[char] += 1 else: frequency[char] = 1
Show the number of 'l’s
print(“Number of 'l’s:”, frequency.get(‘l’, 0))
‘’’
I was impressed until
Output
Number of 'l’s: 16
Yeah it turns out to be useless!
When people refer to agents, is this what they are supposed to be doing?
That’s not how LLMs operate, no. They aggregate raw text and sift for popular answers to common queries.
ChatGPT is one step removed from posting your question to Quora.
But an LLM as a node in a framework that can call a python library should be able to count the number of Rs in strawberry.
It doesn’t scale to AGI but it does reduce hallucinations.
But an LLM as a node in a framework that can call a python library
Isn’t how these systems are configured. They’re just not that sophisticated.
So much of what Sam Alton is doing is brute force, which is why he thinks he needs a $1T investment in new power to build his next iteration model.
Deepseek gets at the edges of this through their partitioned model. But you’re still asking a lot for a machine to intuit whether a query can be solved with some exigent python query the system has yet to identify.
It doesn’t scale to AGI but it does reduce hallucinations
It has to scale to AGI, because a central premise of AGI is a system that can improve itself.
It just doesn’t match the OpenAI development model, which is to scrape and sort data hoping the Internet already has the solution to every problem.
You’ve missed something about the Chinese Room. The solution to the Chinese Room riddle is that it is not the person in the room but rather the room itself that is communicating with you. The fact that there’s a person there is irrelevant, and they could be replaced with a speaker or computer terminal.
Put differently, it’s not an indictment of LLMs that they are merely Chinese Rooms, but rather one should be impressed that the Chinese Room is so capable despite being a completely deterministic machine.
If one day we discover that the human brain works on much simpler principles than we once thought, would that make humans any less valuable? It should be deeply troubling to us that LLMs can do so much while the mathematics behind them are so simple. Arguments that because LLMs are just scaled-up autocomplete they surely can’t be very good at anything are not comforting to me at all.
one should be impressed that the Chinese Room is so capable despite being a completely deterministic machine.
I’d be more impressed if the room could tell me how many "r"s are in Strawberry inside five minutes.
If one day we discover that the human brain works on much simpler principles
Human biology, famous for being simple and straightforward.
Because LLMs operate at the token level, I think it would be a more fair comparison with humans to ask why humans can’t produce the IPA spelling words they can say, /nɔr kæn ðeɪ ˈizəli rid θɪŋz ˈrɪtən ˈpjʊrli ɪn aɪ pi ˈeɪ/ despite the fact that it should be simple to – they understand the sounds after all. I’d be impressed if somebody could do this too! But that most people can’t shouldn’t really move you to think humans must be fundamentally stupid because of this one curious artifact. Maybe they are fundamentall stupid for other reasons, but this one thing is quite unrelated.
why humans can’t produce the IPA spelling words they can say, /nɔr kæn ðeɪ ˈizəli rid θɪŋz ˈrɪtən ˈpjʊrli ɪn aɪ pi ˈeɪ/ despite the fact that it should be simple to – they understand the sounds after all
That’s just access to the right keyboard interface. Humans can and do produce those spellings with additional effort or advanced tool sets.
humans must be fundamentally stupid because of this one curious artifact.
Humans turns oatmeal into essays via a curios lump of muscle is an impressive enough trick on its face.
LLMs have 95% of the work of human intelligence handled for them and still stumble on the last bits.
I mean, among people who are proficient with IPA, they still struggle to read whole sentences written entirely in IPA. Similarly, people who speak and read chinese struggle to read entire sentences written in pinyin. I’m not saying people can’t do it, just that it’s much less natural for us (even though it doesn’t really seem like it ought to be.)
I agree that LLMs are not as bright as they look, but my point here is that this particular thing – their strange inconsistency understanding what letters correspond to the tokens they produce – specifically shouldn’t be taken as evidence for or against LLMs being capable in any other context.
Similarly, people who speak and read chinese struggle to read entire sentences written in pinyin.
Because pinyin was implemented by the Russians to teach Chinese to people who use Cyrillic characters. Would make as much sense to call out people who can’t use Katakana.
This. I often see people shitting on AI as “fancy autocomplete” or joking about how they get basic things incorrect like this post but completely discount how incredibly fucking capable they are in every domain that actually matters. That’s what we should be worried about… what does it matter that it doesn’t “work the same” if it still accomplishes the vast majority of the same things? The fact that we can get something that even approximates logic and reasoning ability from a deterministic system is terrifying on implications alone.
Why doesn’t the LLM know to write (and run) a program to calculate the number of characters?
I feel like I’m missing something fundamental.
You didn’t get good answers so I’ll explain.
First, an LLM can easily write a program to calculate the number of
rs. If you ask an LLM to do this, you will get the code back.But the website ChatGPT.com has no way of executing this code, even if it was generated.
The second explanation is how LLMs work. They work on the word (technically token, but think word) level. They don’t see letters. The AI behind it literally can only see words. The way it generates output is it starts typing words, and then guesses what word is most likely to come next. So it literally does not know how many
rs are in strawberry. The impressive part is how good this “guessing what word comes next” is at answering more complex questions.But why can’t “query the python terminal” be trained into the LLM. It just needs some UI training.
ChatGPT used to actually do this. But they removed that feature for whatever reason. Now the server that the LLM runs on doesn’t isn’t provide the LLM a Python terminal, so the LLM can’t query it
Imagine asking a librarian “What was happening in Los Angeles in the Summer of 1989?” and that person fetching you … That’s modern LLMs in a nutshell.
I agree, but I think you’re still being too generous to LLMs. A librarian who fetched all those things would at least understand the question. An LLM is just trying to generate words that might logically follow the words you used.
IMO, one of the key ideas with the Chinese Room is that there’s an assumption that the computer / book in the Chinese Room experiment has infinite capacity in some way. So, no matter what symbols are passed to it, it can come up with an appropriate response. But, obviously, while LLMs are incredibly huge, they can never be infinite. As a result, they can often be “fooled” when they’re given input that semantically similar to a meme, joke or logic puzzle. The vast majority of the training data that matches the input is the meme, or joke, or logic puzzle. LLMs can’t reason so they can’t distinguish between “this is just a rephrasing of that meme” and “this is similar to that meme but distinct in an important way”.
Can you explain the difference between understanding the question and generating the words that might logically follow? I’m aware that it’s essentially a more powerful version of how auto-correct works, but why should we assume that shows some lack of understanding at a deep level somehow?
Can you explain the difference between understanding the question and generating the words that might logically follow?
I mean, it’s pretty obvious. Take someone like Rowan Atkinson whose death has been misreported multiple times. If you ask a computer system “Is Rowan Atkinson Dead?” you want it to understand the question and give you a yes/no response based on actual facts in its database. A well designed program would know to prioritize recent reports as being more authoritative than older ones. It would know which sources to trust, and which not to trust.
An LLM will just generate text that is statistically likely to follow the question. Because there have been many hoaxes about his death, it might use that as a basis and generate a response indicating he’s dead. But, because those hoaxes have also been debunked many times, it might use that as a basis instead and generate a response indicating that he’s alive.
So, if he really did just die and it was reported in reliable fact-checked news sources, the LLM might say “No, Rowan Atkinson is alive, his death was reported via a viral video, but that video was a hoax.”
but why should we assume that shows some lack of understanding
Because we know what “understanding” is, and that it isn’t simply finding words that are likely to appear following the chain of words up to that point.
The Rowan Atkinson thing isn’t misunderstanding, it’s understanding but having been misled. I’ve literally done this exact thing myself, say something was a hoax (because in the past it was) but then it turned out there was newer info I didn’t know about. I’m not convinced LLMs as they exist today don’t prioritize sources – if trained naively, sure, but these days they can, for instance, integrate search results, and can update on new information. If the LLM can answer correctly only after checking a web search, and I can do the same only after checking a web search, that’s a score of 1-1.
because we know what “understanding” is
Really? Who claims to know what understanding is? Do you think it’s possible there can ever be an AI (even if different from an LLM) which is capable of “understanding?” How can you tell?
I’m not convinced LLMs as they exist today don’t prioritize sources – if trained naively, sure, but these days they can, for instance, integrate search results, and can update on new information.
Well, it includes the text from the search results in the prompt, it’s not actually updating any internal state (the network weights), a new “conversation” starts from scratch.
Yes that’s right, LLMs are context-free. They don’t have internal state. When I say “update on new information” I really mean “when new information is available in its context window, its response takes that into account.”
You might just love Blind Sight. Here, they’re trying to decide if an alien life form is sentient or a Chinese Room:
“Tell me more about your cousins,” Rorschach sent.
“Our cousins lie about the family tree,” Sascha replied, “with nieces and nephews and Neandertals. We do not like annoying cousins.”
“We’d like to know about this tree.”
Sascha muted the channel and gave us a look that said Could it be any more obvious? “It couldn’t have parsed that. There were three linguistic ambiguities in there. It just ignored them.”
“Well, it asked for clarification,” Bates pointed out.
“It asked a follow-up question. Different thing entirely.”
Bates was still out of the loop. Szpindel was starting to get it, though… .
Blindsight is such a great novel. It has not one, not two but three great sci-fi concepts rolled into one book.
One is artificial intelligence (the ship’s captain is an AI), the second is alien life so vastly different it appears incomprehensible to human minds. And last but not least, and the most wild, vampires as a evolutionary branch of humanity that died out and has been recreated in the future.
Also, the extremely post-cyberpunk posthumans, and each member of the crew is a different extremely capable kind of fucked up model of what we might become, with the protagonist personifying the genre of horror that it is, while still being occasionally hilarious.
Despite being fundamentally a cosmic horror novel, and relentlessly math-in-the-back-of-the-book hard scifi it does what all the best cyberpunk does and shamelessly flirts with the supernatural at every opportunity. The sequel doubles down on this, and while not quite as good overall (still exceptionally good, but harder to follow) each of the characters explores a novel and sweet+sad+horrifying kind of love.
Oooh, I didn’t even know it had a sequel!
I wouldn’t say it flirts with the supernatural as much as it’s with one foot into weird fiction, which is where cosmic horror comes from.
Characters in the sequel include a hive-mind of post-science innovation monks, a straight up witch who charges their monastery at the head of a zombie army, and a plotline about finding what the monks think might be god. And that first scene, which is absolute fire btw.
Primary themes include… Well the bit of exposition about needing to ‘crawl off one mountain and cross a valley to reach higher peaks of understanding’, and coping as a mostly baseline human surrounded by superintelligences, ‘sufficiently advanced technology’, etc.
There are different types of Artificial intelligences. Counter-Strike 1.6 bots, by definition, were AI. They even used deep learning to figure out new maps.
If you want an even older example, the ghosts in Pac-Man could be considered AI as well.
By this logic any solid state machine is AI.
These words used to mean things before marketing teams started calling everything they want to sell “AI”
No. Artificial Intelligence has to be imitating intelligent behavior - such as the ghosts imitating how, ostensibly, a ghost trapped in a maze and hungry for yellow circular flesh would behave, and how CS1.6 bots imitate the behavior of intelligent players. They artificially reproduce intelligent behavior.
Which means LLMs are very much AI. They are not, however, AGI.
No, the logic for a Pac Man ghost is a solid state machine
Stupid people attributing intelligence to something that is probably not is a shameful hill to die on.
Your god is just an autocomplete bot that you refuse to learn about outside the hype bubble
As far as I’m concerned, “intelligence” in the context of AI basically just means the ability to do things that we consider to be difficult. It’s both very hand-wavy and a constantly moving goalpost. So a hypothetical pacman ghost is intelligent before we’ve figured out how to do it. After it’s been figured out and implemented, it ceases to be intelligent but we continue to call it intelligent for historical reasons.
Okay, what is your definition of AI then, if nothing burned onto silicon can count?
If LLMs aren’t AI, then absolutely nothing up to this point probably counts either.
since nothing burned into silicon can count
Oh noo you called me a robot racist. Lol fuck off dude you know that’s not what I’m saying
The problem with supporters of AI is they learned everything they know from the companies trying to sell it to them. Like a 50s mom excited about her magic tupperware.
AI implies intelligence
To me that means an autonomous being that understands what it is.
First of all these programs aren’t autonomous, they need to be seeded by us. We send a prompt or question, even when left alone to its own devices it doesn’t do anything until it is given an objective or reward by us.
Looking up the most common answer isn’t intelligence, there is no understanding of cause and effect going on inside the algorithm, just regurgitating the dataset
These models do not reason, though some do a very good job of trying to convince us.
Biggest threat to humanity
I know there’s no logic, but it’s funny to imagine it’s because it’s pronounced Mrs. Sippy
I get the meme aspect of this. But just to be clear, it was never fair to judge LLMs for specifically this. The LLM doesn’t even see the letters in the words, as every word is broken down into tokens, which are numbers. I suppose with a big enough corpus of data it might eventually extrapolate which words have which letter from texts describing these words, but normally it shouldn’t be expected.
I know that words are tokenized in the vanilla transformer. But do GPT and similar LLMs still do that as well? I assumed they also tokenize on character/symbol level, possibly mixed up with additional abstraction down the chain.
I don’t get it
The joke is that it took 14 mins to give that answer
ah
