How can she be fertile if her ovaries are removed?
And the text even ends with a mention of her being in early menopause…
Because you’re not getting an answer to a question, you’re getting characters selected to appear like they statistically belong together given the context.
A sentence saying she had her ovaries removed and that she is fertile don’t statistically belong together, so you’re not even getting that.
You think that because you understand the meaning of words. LLM AI doesn’t. It uses math and math doesn’t care that it’s contradictory, it cares that the words individually usually came next in it’s training data.
It’s not even words, it “thinks” in “word parts” called tokens.
and those tokens? just numbers, indexes. LLMs have no concept of language or words or anything, it’s literally just a statistical calculator where the numbers encode some combination of letter(s)
It has nothing to do with the meaning. If your training set consists of a bunch of strings consisting of A’s and B’s together and another subset consisting of C’s and D’s together (i.e.
[]+and[]+in regex) and the LLM outputs “ABBABBBDA”, then that’s statistically unlikely because D’s don’t appear with A’s and B’s. I have no idea what the meaning of these sequences are, nor do I need to know to see that it’s statistically unlikely.In the context of language and LLMs, “statistically likely” roughly means that some human somewhere out there is more likely to have written this than the alternatives because that’s where the training data comes from. The LLM doesn’t need to understand the meaning. It just needs to be able to compute probabilities, and the probability of this excerpt should be low because the probability that a human would’ve written this is low.
Unless they grabbed discussion forums that happened to have examples of multiple people. It’s pretty common when talking about fertility, problems in that area will be brought up.
People can use context and meaning to avoid that mistake, LLMs have to be forced not to through much slower QC by real people (something Google hates to do).
I think the trick here is to not use Google. The Wikipedia page for the movie heat is the first result on DuckDuckGo
DDG also has a quick answer AI
and its implementation is so massively superior to anything else i’ve seen that it makes me want to bang my head against the wall
their AI just has a list of vetted sources which it relevant articles from and summarizes the text according to your query, so it actually fucking cites sources that you can easily verify and it’s unlikely to just hallucinate nonsense. It also has the ability to go “yeah idk man, try changing your query maybe” if it can’t find a relevant article to pull from.
Oh and since it uses actual sources it can easily be corrected if errors are noticed :OOOIts does, but its less annoying and actually has an off switch
You can also search Wikipedia directly.
Yup, using the bang !w anywhere within the search
if anyone’s using ddg, you can do this by just adding !w for a direct Wikipedia search, or even !imdb for a direct imdb search without going to the respective sites first.
PSA for Firefox/fork users, click the button to the left of the search bar after clicking blank space in the search bar, you’ll get a list of choices besides just your primary selection. You can add more:
Google was fine as it was before, now it does shit like this. I hate how AI is shoved down our throats. And the results on google nowadays feel so much worse and generic than a few years ago. That isn’t just a feeling I have, right?
Not just you. I feel like search modifiers like “NOT” or “OR” haven’t been working for a good long while either.
They stopped supporting booleans in 2013. This is the list of currently supported search modifiers.
While it’s nice to finally have closure on this, it’s also depressing that they removed that.
They’re an ad company that just happens to offer search as a way to show ads.
Their ideal scenario is one where you search forever and never find what you were looking for.
They’re walking the fine line between being shitty enough that you have to refine your search multiple times (thus allowing them to show you more ads), but not being SO shitty that you give up and never come back.
This has been effectively proven by email chains made public through court proceedings. Former head of search left sometime around 2015 because the ad team was being allowed to make search worse to pump their numbers.
New head of search was the guy who ran Yahoo’s search department while they got eaten alive by Google, and he had been working Google’s Ad division after he left Yahoo.
Add obscenities to your search for the most optimized results. It drops the AI component and seems to provide the more direct results we used to get.
I just get X-rated results.
Say -fuck with a hyphen at the beginning so that it doesnt search for it.
-fuck, that’s good.
Really? Felt like Google jumped the shark quite awhile before this even started.
It also contradicts itself immediately, saying she’s fertile, then immediately saying she’s had her ovaries removed end that she’s reached menopause.
Wouldn’t removing your ovaries and fallopian tubes make you not “fertile” by definition?
Yes, it contradicts itself within the next couple of sentences.
As per form for these “AIs”.
Hey, be fair, the “I” in “LLM” stands for “intelligent”. Please continue consuming the slop.
Is it considered normal to type out a normal question format when using search engines?
If I were looking for an answer instead of making a funny meme, I’d search “heat movie cast Angelina Jolie” if I didn’t feel like putting any effort in.
Then again, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve seen someone use their phone to search google “what is 87÷167?” instead of doing “87/167” or like… Opening the calculator…
People do things in different, sometimes weird ways.
I sometimes ask questions, and sometimes I’m forced to because the original answer somehow misinterpreted my query. I also do searches like you mentioned, but I don’t exclusively do one of the other.
Yeah, the way that i would do it is to look up the Wikipedia page for the movie Heat and go to the cast section.
This is how i always look for information and it can actually be to my detriment. Like that time i went to Reddit to ask them what that movie was where time is a currency, and somebody pointed out that i could have just googled “time is money movie” and it would have immediately shown me In Time (2011).
Also, when i want something from an app or website i will consult the alphabetical list or look for a link to click, instead of just using the search bar.
I don’t know, somehow it never entered my brain that search bars are smart and can figure out what you meant if you use natural language. Even though they’ve been programmed that way since before i was born
It depends on the person in my experience.
For instance, I’ll often use a question format, but usually because I’m looking for similar results from a forum, in which I’d expect to find a post with a similar question as the title. This sometimes produces better results than just plain old keywords.
Other times though, I’m just throwing keywords out and adding
""to select the ones I require be included.But I do know some people who only ever ask in question format no matter the actual query. (e.g. “What is 2+2” instead of just typing “2+2” and getting the calculator dialogue, like you said in your post too.)
