Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 387 posts

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#121

Post by praisewhitey »

jerf wrote: post #27

"Achieving the initial 80 percent is relatively straightforward since it involves approximating a large amount of human data, Marcus said, but the final 20 percent is extremely challenging. In fact, Marcus thinks that last 20 percent might be the hardest thing of all." 100% completely accurate is super-AI-complete. No human can meet that goal either. No, not even you, dear person reading this. You are wrong about som…

You're looking at it the wrong way, the goal should be 0% inaccurate. Meaning for the 20% of things it can't answer, it shouldn't make something up.

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#122

Post by skybrian »

jerf wrote: post #27

"Achieving the initial 80 percent is relatively straightforward since it involves approximating a large amount of human data, Marcus said, but the final 20 percent is extremely challenging. In fact, Marcus thinks that last 20 percent might be the hardest thing of all." 100% completely accurate is super-AI-complete. No human can meet that goal either. No, not even you, dear person reading this. You are wrong about som…

Or to put it another way, I think Google should have a way of saying "yes, we know this result is wrong, but we're leaving it in because it's funny."

There is a demand for funny results. Someone asking “how many rocks should I eat” is looking for entertainment, so you might as well give it to them.

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#123

Post by somenameforme »

jononor wrote: post #107
lukev wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there's some semantic slippage around the meaning of the word "accuracy" here. I grant you, my print Encyclopedia Britannica is not 100% accurate. But the difference between it and a LLM is not just a matter of degree: there's a "chain of custody" to information that just isn't there with a LLM. Philosophers have a working definition of knowledge as being (at least†) "justified true belief." Even if a LLM…

Encyclopedia Britannica is also wrong in a reproducible and fixable way. And the input queries a finite set. It's output does not change due to random or arbitrary things. It is actually possible to verify. LLMs so far seem to be entirely unverifiable.

LLMs are completely deterministic even if that's kind of weird to state because they output things in terms of probabilities. But if you simply took the highest probability next word, you'd always yield the exact same output given the exact same input. Randomness is intentionally injected to make them seem less robotic through the 'temperature' parameter. Why it's not just called the rng factor is beyond me.

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#125

Post by lawn »

PreInternet01 wrote: post #108
greg_V wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh it gets even better. The public has been hearing about AI this and AI that for over a year, but the existing use cases and deployment was confined to some super special niches like writing or the creative industries and programming. This is the first nation-scale deployment of the technology, running on Google's biggest and most profitable market in one of the most widely used internet services, and it's a shitsho…

Yeah, the most likely take here is that Google's leadership truly did not recognize how utterly awful the quality of their flagship search index had become over the years. I mean, it explains a lot, but still... you're recruited using industry-leading practices out of an overflowing pool of abundant talent... and this is what you make of it? As the kids say: SMH!

> you're recruited using industry-leading practices out of an overflowing pool of abundant talent

The ridiculous focus on on leet-code is surely industry-leading (because whatever Google does becomes industry-leading) but it sure isn't a good way to filter for competency.

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#126

Post by fragmede »

saagarjha wrote: post #96
jerf wrote: post #27

"Achieving the initial 80 percent is relatively straightforward since it involves approximating a large amount of human data, Marcus said, but the final 20 percent is extremely challenging. In fact, Marcus thinks that last 20 percent might be the hardest thing of all." 100% completely accurate is super-AI-complete. No human can meet that goal either. No, not even you, dear person reading this. You are wrong about som…

Thankfully a billion people are not asking me for answers to things, so it's OK if I am wrong sometimes.

Nor am I being treated as an omniscient magic black box of knowledge.

Hilariously though, polyvinyl acetate, the main ingredient in Elemers glue is used as a binding agent to keep emulsions from separating into oil and water, and is used in chewing gum, and covers citrus fruits, sweets, chocolate, and apples in a glossy finish, among other food things.

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#127

Post by ta8645 »

jononor wrote: post #107
lukev wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there's some semantic slippage around the meaning of the word "accuracy" here. I grant you, my print Encyclopedia Britannica is not 100% accurate. But the difference between it and a LLM is not just a matter of degree: there's a "chain of custody" to information that just isn't there with a LLM. Philosophers have a working definition of knowledge as being (at least†) "justified true belief." Even if a LLM…

Encyclopedia Britannica is also wrong in a reproducible and fixable way. And the input queries a finite set. It's output does not change due to random or arbitrary things. It is actually possible to verify. LLMs so far seem to be entirely unverifiable.

> LLMs so far seem to be entirely unverifiable.

I don't understand this complaint. Are they any less verifiable than a human?

Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search

#130

Post by kccqzy »

bithive123 wrote: post #62

Why do people act like LLMs only hallucinate some of the time?

Not hallucinations but these AI answers often (always?) provide sources they link to. It's just that the source is a random Reddit or Quora post that's obviously just trolling.

Then, when people post these weird AI answers on Reddit and come up with more absurd jokes, the AI then picks it up again. For example in https://www.reddit.com/r/comedyheaven/comments/1cq4ieb/food_... Google AI suggested applum and bananum as a response to food names ending with "um" when someone suggested uranium, Copilot AI started copied that suggestion. It's entertaining to watch.

Post reply on HN