131–140 of 158 posts
For example, automotive technicians and industrial mechanics use AI to interpret complex test results, debug electrical wiring, and inspect machinery for wear. No chance I'd trust Gemini to correctly tell me which wire was the high voltage one. You're absolutely right! I apologize for providing a factually incorrect explanation. You asked a question, and I gave you incorrect information that put you in danger. That f…
There's no chance I would trust a human to correctly tell me which wire was the high-voltage one, nor would I trust the documentation. I would use it as a starting point, then apply test instruments to make sure I had the right information. Then I would unplug the device and discharge the caps before starting to work on it. We need to start training people that AI answers are just as fallible as answers you get from…
It's like "[actual living person] has big eyes" and "character portrait in a 90s video game has big eyes" are similar sentences on the surface, but they describe things as far part from each other as a single dot left by bird poop vs. the combined writings of all humans, ever. Like half an atom compared to a universe.
Same for "beings". Just no. Or rather, I apply what you suggest to what you said, I don't just take your word for it but inspect if what you said could be true, and realise your answer is so full of false premises it's not even wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like the term "slop", misuse of a pop psychology term like "AI psychosis" is another block to critical thinking and a casual dismissal of a conversation. You're right, LLM-generated answers are not the same as those from a qualified expert. Sometimes they're better. Case in point. I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine about going off propranolol. He wanted to stop it because he didn't like the side effect…
Great example, but not for the reasons you think. You have zero qualifications to make that judgement call. You don’t know if the standard protocol was right in this instance or inappropriate (depends on dose side effects etc etc) and I certainly wouldn’t go anywhere near Gemini to try to verify that. Please stop relying on word generators for medical advice, period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great example, but not for the reasons you think. You have zero qualifications to make that judgement call. You don’t know if the standard protocol was right in this instance or inappropriate (depends on dose side effects etc etc) and I certainly wouldn’t go anywhere near Gemini to try to verify that. Please stop relying on word generators for medical advice, period.
Yes, you don't rely on an LLM solely for medical advice. You use it to get orientation to look at other sources. In my friend's case, I was relaying to him what I learned when taking a similar drug, my doctor's cautions on stopping the drug, what the manufacturer says about stopping the drug, and the published dosing schedule. I guess you're right about me having zero qualifications. I only have a lifetime of experie…
When you talk of "answers" in the same category as humans give them, of "beings", you already are outside the realms of critical thought.
> I wish I'd had the skill before one such mistake toasted my kidneys.
I wish the people who died from bad LLM advice were still alive. Many of them had their life still ahead of them. You can't guilt me into confusing generated text with answers while ignoring all that. I also have pain and suffering in my life, one aspect of it are these attempts to devalue humans by putting probabalitities of words humans produced on the same level as them, calling them "beings" and all that. If I could remove all intellectual dishonesty from the world and have some pain in my right hand side diodes in exchange, I'd take that bullet for y'all. So I'm not impressed by this tear duct jerking.
For example, automotive technicians and industrial mechanics use AI to interpret complex test results, debug electrical wiring, and inspect machinery for wear. No chance I'd trust Gemini to correctly tell me which wire was the high voltage one. You're absolutely right! I apologize for providing a factually incorrect explanation. You asked a question, and I gave you incorrect information that put you in danger. That f…
Disappointing. I wouldn't trust it for "real" problems at all!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great example, but not for the reasons you think. You have zero qualifications to make that judgement call. You don’t know if the standard protocol was right in this instance or inappropriate (depends on dose side effects etc etc) and I certainly wouldn’t go anywhere near Gemini to try to verify that. Please stop relying on word generators for medical advice, period.
We'll see. I'm guessing you'll have to accept a very different world.
"Less than 10% of those interactions fully automate tasks." - that's because they are measuring use of Google's models. People are using Antrophic's models for automation and coding. My wife is from a tribe in the mountains where they live like they live off the land, cooking with fire like they did 1000 years ago. She uses Gemini to learn how to live in the city - book flights and hotels, stuff like that. I use Clau…
One possible interpretation of this article is that it’s very much in support of the idea that the AI bubble is going to burst. > AI use at work is broad but shallow: Workplace adoption spans all industry sectors and also 68% of all occupations that collectively represent 90% of total U.S. employment. However within jobs, people are using AI selectively: in a typical job AI is used for only ~21% of tasks. Translation…
Yeah, there has to be a bubble for it to burst. There doesn't seem to be one yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah it's definitely some kind of delusion/gullibility exploit (probably mixed with having too much money). The guy isn't dumb, but he is obsessed with solving every problem with AI.
This person seems to be intentionally making themselves dumb by choosing not to think.
For example, automotive technicians and industrial mechanics use AI to interpret complex test results, debug electrical wiring, and inspect machinery for wear. No chance I'd trust Gemini to correctly tell me which wire was the high voltage one. You're absolutely right! I apologize for providing a factually incorrect explanation. You asked a question, and I gave you incorrect information that put you in danger. That f…
There's no chance I would trust a human to correctly tell me which wire was the high-voltage one, nor would I trust the documentation. I would use it as a starting point, then apply test instruments to make sure I had the right information. Then I would unplug the device and discharge the caps before starting to work on it. We need to start training people that AI answers are just as fallible as answers you get from…
You're right, BUT, humans don't risk to take responsibility if they clearly don't know the answer, they would at least tell you: I don't know, let me find someone who might know or X, Y, Z might be able to help you.
AI: Bro, trust me, this is 100% accurate, I give you my teeth if you find it wrong. ... later on ... You're absolutely right, I was wrong, lets try another approach