• Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    I used to use Google assistant to spell words I couldn’t remember the spelling of in my English classes (without looking at my phone) so the students could also hear the spelling out loud in a voice other than mine.

    Me: “Hey Google, how do you spell millennium?” GA: “Millennium is spelled M-I-L-L-E-N-N-I-U-M.”

    Now, I ask Gemini: “Hey Google, how do you spell millennium.” Gemini: “Millennium”.

    Utterly useless.

  • adr1an@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    That’s human-like intelligence at its finest. I am not being sarcastic, hear me out. If you told a person to give you 10 numbers at random, they can’t. Everyone thinks randomness is easy, but it isn’t ( see: random.org )

    So, of course a GPT model would fail at this task, I love that they do fail and the dog looks so cute!!

    • kaidezee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      I mean, here’s a few random numbers out of my head: 1 9 5 2 6 8 6 3 4 0. I don’t get it, why is it supposed to be hard? Sure, they’re not “truly” random, but they sure look random /:

      • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        You have one of each number except 7, and you’re deliberately avoiding doubles and runs of consecutive numbers. Human attempts at randomness tend to be very idealized in that way, and as a result, less random.

      • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        They may look random but arent truly random. Computers are terrible at it too. Thats why cryptography requires external sources to generate “true” random numbers. For example, cloudflare uses a wall of lava lamps to generate randomness for encryption keys.

        • FermionWrangler@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 days ago

          792654349324138383027654826548192874651875306480462765726382

          I don’t know man, that’s pretty random. I mean do you think you can predict the next numbers in the sequence just from the ones already there? Would have to predict the next batch, the way I made these come in batches. I can’t exactly produce 1 number at a time from banging on my number-pad.

          • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 days ago

            I can make an educated guess what numbers are most likely, yes.

            For example, you have no repeat number sequences, so I can take a guess that the number 2 is less likely to be next.

            Humans have certain tendencies that makes them want to make a number only seem more random. Also, you’ve probably seen those mentalists correctly guessing seemingly random stuff. Tells you enough how easily people are fooled into thinking something specific, so random can you actually be.

            • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              you can just throw a coin x times and here you go true randomness and in convenient binary too

              computers can’t fathom our coin tossing abilities

              though truth to be said it’s more because we are just so bad at tossing coins. not even AI can predict the result of what will happen when we start to throw shit around

              I bet it is even more random when you throw a coin while being inebriated.

              Actually say random numbers when you are drunk shitless and they will be random. Checkmate

              • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 days ago

                Clearly you don’t understand what the discussion is about, or you wouldn’t give such an hilariously bad example.

                Yes practically, predicting a coin toss would be very hard. But if you take every into account (gravity, wind direction, coin center of balance, etc) you can calculate the result, making it not truly random.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            I am 99.8% sure that your sequence of numbers is not random. Your brain purposefully avoided repeating a digit. The probability of no repeated digits in 60 numbers is 1- (9/10)^60

          • allisonmaybe@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            Absolutely. And if you typed enough there would be enough information to tell if you typed that on a keyboard or phone, which fingers you used, and how you were feeling that day.

      • Wizzard@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’ve got some more random numbers:

        8 6 7 5 3 0 9 1 1 2 3 5 8 1 2 4 8 1 6 3 2

        It’s not that they look random is enough - They need to BE random.

        Recheck your lava lamp Wall of Entropy and generate some real rands, scrub. (/s)

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Here’s another set of random digits

        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

        :3

        After all, there’s no fundamental reason for why it can’t all just be a repeat of the same number. But it doesn’t look random, right? So what is randomness?

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          There are 10 trillion ways to combine a sequence that long, so I think you would expect to see that exact sequence every 10 trillion digits of a randomly generated decimal sequence on average, which isn’t that many to a modern computer, so almost certainly that has already happened by pure accident.

          And randomness can be defined as entropy, which you check statistically. You can never be certain, you can only increase your level of confidence. Here is how random.org does it:

          https://www.random.org/analysis/

          And this shows you what some of those analyses look like in real time:

          https://www.random.org/statistics/

  • gamer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Why wouldn’t you want a dog in your static? Why are you a horrible person?

  • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    7 days ago

    ChatGPT: “don’t generate a dog, don’t generate a dog, don’t generate a dog”

    Generates a dog.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Fellow human, you seem to be beeping like a robot. Might you need to consider visiting the human repair shop for some bench time?

  • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 days ago

    I asked mistral to “generate an image with no dog” and it did

    The fact that it chose something else to generate instead makes me wonder if this is some sort of free will?

    • festnt@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      it just did what you wanted, since you asked for an image. free will would be if you asked it not to generate an image but it still did, if it just generated an image without you prompting it to, or if you asked for an image and it just didn’t respond

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      Mistral likely does “prompt enhancement,” aka feeding your prompt to an LLM first and asking it to expand it with more words.

      So internally, a Mistral text LLM is probably writing out “sure! Here’s a long prompt with no dog: …” and then that part is fed to the image generator.

      Other “LLMs” are truly multimodal and generate image output, hence they still get the word “dog” in the input.

    • Hoimo@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      I think all the big image generators support negative prompts by now, so if it interpreted “no dog” as a negative for “dog”, then it will check its outputs for things resembling dogs and discard those. No free will, just a much more useful system than whatever OP is using.

    • Gloomy@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Wow. I ABSOLUTLY saw an image of a dog in the middle. Our brain sure is fascinating sometimes.

    • festnt@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      7 days ago

      “want me to try again with even more randomized noise?” literally makes no sense if it had generated what you asked (which the chatbot thinks it did)

      • joshchandra@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        6 days ago

        Remember, “AI” (autocomplete idiocy) doesn’t know what sense is; it just continues words and displays what may seem to address at least some of the topic with no innate understanding of accuracy or truth.

        Never forget that ChatGPT 2.0 can literally be run in a giant Excel spreadsheet with no other program needed. It’s not “smart” and is ultimately millions of formulae at work.