Maybe they know something we don't know? What if: It will be a crime series following the "Fall guy" case, man who was a Boeing whistleblower and got sucked out of the fuselage mid flight. Was it the usual door falling off, or was it a murder? Maybe it is being filmed right now and Google leaked the information?
We really need a whole community just for the very funny AI errors like this. I could spend all day reading about leaving a dog in a hot car, jumping off a bridge and eating at least one rock a day.
What the hell is going on with Google search? Has it completely shit itself after the AI implementation? I know its been bad for a while but this is another level.
Short answer, yes. The ratio of LLM generated noise to actual content is increasing exponentially as we speak. To us it seems overnight because the increase is so steep but it's been happening for several years. And it's going to get a lot worse.
Honestly, I think we'll have to go back to 90s methods like web rings and human curated link directories.
I stopped using Google years ago. I started using Bing but had to stop that as it would divert me to MSN to sign in when clicking a link for a news article. Like a news article for The Independent or The Times or any other.
I then started using DuckDuckGo which is powered by Bing, but found it wasn’t great at many searches.
I now use Arc Search most of the time and click browse for me to get the information I want without the bullshit. Search is essentially dead due to greed.
I wonder if they considered reddit votes to try to give more weight to high quality answers but also high quality jokes.
But without votes pure nonsense becomes equal to truth.
Humans could use reddit because we understand the site enough to be able to filter the valuable from the bad.
I feel like the answer would be in between ai specifically to be such a filter.
Every such post of google failing i have screen capped and then asked chatgpt for a more detailed explanation to do what google suggests i do. Everytime it managed to call out the issues. So just allowing an ai to proofread its response in context of the question could stop a lot of hallucinations.
But its at least 3 times as slow and expensive if it needs to change its first response.
But i guess doing things properly isnt profitable , better to just rush tech and kill your most famous product.
I spent most of today looking at places to rent in Denver and I come home to Google having killed it's fucking search engine. What the hell is going on
On the one hand, generative AI doesn't have to give deterministic answers i.e. it won't necessarily generate the same answer even when asked the same question in the same way.
But on the other hand, editing the HTML of any page to say whatever you want and then taking a screenshot of it is very easy.
Just because you click on it that doesn’t make it accurate. More importantly, that text isn’t “clickable”, so they can’t be measuring raw engagement either.
Technically, generative AI will always give the same answer when given the same input. But, what happens is a "seed" is mixed in to help randomize things, that way it can give different answers every time even if you ask it the same question.
OK, but we're discussing whether computers are "reliable, predictable, idempotent". Statements like this about computers are generally made when discussing the internal workings of a computer among developers or at even lower levels among computer engineers and such.
This isn't something you would say at a higher level for end-users because there are any number of reasons why an application can spit out different outputs even when seemingly given the "same input".
And while I could point out that Llama.cpp is open source (so you could just go in and test this by forcing the same seed every time...) it doesn't matter because your statement effectively boils down to something like this:
"I clicked the button (input) for the random number generator and got a different number (output) every time, thus computers are not reliable or predictable!"
If you wanted to make a better argument about computers not always being reliable/predictable, you're better off pointing at how radiation can flip bits in our electronics (which is one reason why we have implemented checksums and other tools to verify that information hasn't been altered over time or in transition). Take, for instance, the example of what happened to some voting machines in Belgium in 2003: https://www.businessinsider.com/cosmic-rays-harm-computers-smartphones-2019-7
Anyway, thanks if you read this far, I enjoy discussing things like this.
