16
Is anyone else scared of how fast AI is advancing?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
16 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
54370 readers
466 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
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
How long ago did you try?! Have an example?
LLMs now search the web and compile results and info very fast. They do exactly what I’ve been doing for decades, searching and skimming results.
If you ask one “I need a more powerful drill for screwing lag bolts into hardwood” it’ll toss you a whole write up on things.
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.
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!