• Avicenna@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    41 minutes ago

    I mean it hallucinates numbers when when you ask it to extract some numeric daha publicly available online so yeah…

  • pseudo@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 hours ago

    When you delegate, to a person, a tool or a process, you check the result. You make sure that the delegated tasks get done and correctly and that the results are what is expected.

    Finding that it is not the case after months by luck shows incompetence. Look for the incompetent.

  • Decq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Surely this is just fraud right? Seeing they have a board directors they have shareholders probably? I feel they should at least all get fired, if not prosecuted. This lack of competency is just criminal to me.

  • mudkip@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Ah yes, what a surprise. The random word generator gave you random numbers that aren’t actually real.

  • Jankatarch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Tbf at this point corporate economy is made up anyway so as long as investors are gambling their endless generational wealth does it matter?

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    This is why I hate search engines promoting AI results when you are researching for something. It is confidently giving incorrect responses. I asked for sources on one LLM model before while using Duckduckgo, and it just told me that there are no sources and the information is based on broad knowledge. At one point, I challenged the AI that it is wrong, but it insisted it doesn’t. It turns out that it is citing a years old source written by a different bot long ago. But on the one hand, most of you are probably familiar that on occasions that the is incorrect and you challenge it, it will relent, although it will be a sycophant even though you yourself are actually incorrect. This is Schrödinger’s AI.

    • GalacticSushi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Bro, just give us a few trillion dollars, bro. I swear bro. It’ll be AGI this time next year, bro. We’re so close, bro. I just need need some money, bro. Some money and some god-damned faith, bro.

      • vaderaj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        User: Hi big corp AI(LLM), do this task

        Big Corp AI: Here is output

        User: Hi big corp your AI’s output is not up to standard I guess it’s a waste of…

        Big Corp: use this agent which ensures correct output (for more energy)

        User: it still doesn’t work…guess I was wrong all along let me retry…

        And the loop continues until they get a few trillion dollars

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You can make something AI based that does this, but it’s not cheap or easy. You have to make agents that handle data retrieval and programmatically make the LLM to chose the right agent. We set one up at work, it took months. If it can’t find the data with a high certainty, it tells you to ask the analytics dept.

  • Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    11 hours ago

    To everyone I’ve talked to about AI, I’ve suggested a test. Take a subject that they know they are an expert at. Then ask AI questions that they already know the answers to. See what percentage AI gets right, if any. Often they find that plausible sounding answers are produced however, if you know the subject, you know that it isn’t quite fact that is produced. A recovery from an injury might be listed as 3 weeks when it is average 6-8 or similar. Someone who did not already know the correct information, could be damaged by the “guessed” response of AI. AI can have uses but it needs to be heavily scrutinized before passing on anything it generates. If you are good at something, that usually means you have to waste time in order to use AI.

    • laranis@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Happy cake day, and this absolutely. I figured out its game the first time I asked it a spec for an automotive project I was working on. I asked it the torque specs for some head bolts and it gave me the wrong answer. But not just the wrong number, the wrong procedure altogether. Modern engines have torque to yield specs, meaning essentially you torque them to a number and then add additional rotation to permanently distort the threads to lock it in. This car was absolutely not that and when I explained back to it the error it had made IT DID IT AGAIN. It sounded very plausible but someone following those directions would have likely ruined the engine.

      So, yeah, test it and see how dumb it really is.

    • NABDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I had a very simple script. All it does is trigger an action on a monthly schedule.

      I passed the script to Copilot to review.

      It caught some typos. It also said the logic of the script was flawed and it wouldn’t work as intended.

      I didn’t need it to check the logic of the script. I knew the logic was sound because it was a port of a script I was already using. I asked because I was curious about what it would say.

      After restating the prompt several times, I was able to get it to confirm that the logic was not flawed, but the process did not inspire any confidence in Copilot’s abilities.

  • Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Our AI that monitors customer interactions sometimes makes up shit that didn’t happen during the call. Any agent smart enough could probably fool it into giving the wrong summary with the right key words. I only caught on when I started reading the logs carefully, but I don’t know if management cares so long as the business client is happy.

  • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    13 hours ago

    My workplace, the senior management, is going all in on Copilot. So much so that at the end of last year to told us to use Copilot for year end reviews! Even provided a prompt to use, told us to link it to Outlook (not sure why, since our email retention isn’t very long)… but whatever.

    I tried it, out of curiosity because I had no faith. It started printing out stats for things that never happened. It provided a 35% increase here, a 20% decress there, blah blah blah. It didn’t actually highlight anything I do or did. And I’m banking that a human will partially read my review, not just use AI.

    If someone read it, I’m good. If AI reads it, I do wonder if I screwed myself. Since senior mgmt is just offloading to AI…

  • Strider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    15 hours ago

    It doesn’t matter. Management wants this and will not stop until they run against a wall at full speed. 🤷

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I see this happening more and more as corporate USA throws itself blindly into AI dependency. Basic facts and information will become corrupted, maybe hopelessly so, as it infuses itself into our systems.