AI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon study
Technology
272
Beiträge
107
Kommentatoren
79
Aufrufe
-
AI cant even understand it's own brain to write about it
Neither can we...
-
Whoa that's like how many colors there are
-
Yeah, they’re statistical word generators. There’s no intelligence. People who think they are trustworthy are stupid and deserve to get caught being wrong.
Emotion > Facts. Most people have been trained to blindly accept things and cheer on what fits with their agenda. Like technbro's exaggerating LLMs, or people like you misrepresenting LLMs as mere statistical word generators without intelligence. That's like saying a computer is just wires and switches, or missing the forest for the trees. Both is equally false.
Yet if it fits with the emotional needs or with dogma, then other will agree. It's a convenient and comforting "A vs B" worldview we've been trained to accept. And so the satisfying notion and misinformation keeps spreading.
LLMs tell us more about human intelligence and the human slop we've been generating. It tells us that most people are not that much more than statistical word generators.
-
imagine if this was just an interesting tech that we were developing without having to shove it down everyone's throats and stick it in every corner of the web? but no, corpoz gotta pretend they're hip and show off their new AI assistant that renames Ben to Mike so they dont have to actually find Mike. capitalism ruins everything.
There's a certain amount of: "if this isn't going to take over the world, I'm going to just take my money and put it in something that will" mentality out there. It's not 100% of all investors, but it's pervasive enough that the "potential world beaters" are seriously over-funded as compared to their more modest reliable inflation+10% YoY return alternatives.
-
Tjose are people who could be living their li:es, pursuing their ambitions, whatever. That could get some shit done. Comparison not valid.
The comparison is about the correctness of their work.
Their lives have nothing to do with it.
-
that is such a ridiculous idea. Just because you see hate for it in the media doesn't mean it originated there. I'll have you know that i have embarrassed myself by screaming at robot phone receptionists for years now. stupid fuckers pretending to be people but not knowing shit. I was born ready to hate LLMs and I'm not gonna have you claim that CNN made me do it.
Search AI in Lemmy and check out every article on it. It definitely is media spreading all the hate. And like this article is often some money yellow journalism
-
I'm in a workplace that has tried not to be overbearing about AI, but has encouraged us to use them for coding.
I've tried to give mine some very simple tasks like writing a unit test just for the constructor of a class to verify current behavior, and it generates output that's both wrong and doesn't verify anything.
I'm aware it sometimes gets better with more intricate, specific instructions, and that I can offer it further corrections, but at that point it's not even saving time. I would do this with a human in the hopes that they would continue to retain the knowledge, but I don't even have hopes for AI to apply those lessons in new contexts. In a way, it's been a sigh of relief to realize just like Dotcom, just like 3D TVs, just like home smart assistants, it is a bubble.
The first half dozen times I tried AI for code, across the past year or so, it failed pretty much as you describe.
Finally, I hit on some things it can do. For me: keeping the instructions more general, not specifying certain libraries for instance, was the key to getting something that actually does something. Also, if it doesn't show you the whole program, get it to show you the whole thing, and make it fix its own mistakes so you can build on working code with later requests.
-
No, it matters. Youre pushing the lie they want pushed.
And you're pushing a hate train with no aspect of nuance to show for it.
Seems like you are even less than 30% useful. And that is mainly because you can be used as fertilizer.
-
and doesn't need to be exactly right
What kind of tasks do you consider that don't need to be exactly right?
Description generators for TTRPGs, as you will read through them afterwards anyway and correct when necessary.
Generating lists of ideas. For creative writing, getting a bunch of ideas you can pick and choose from that fit the narrative you want.
A search engine like Perplexity.ai which after searching summarizes the web page and adds a link to the page next to it. If the summary seems promising, you go to the real page to verify the actual information.
Simple code like HTML pages and boilerplate code that you will still review afterwards anyway.
-
When LLMs get it right it's because they're summarizing a stack overflow or GitHub snippet it was trained on. But you loose all the benefits of other humans commenting on the context, pitfalls and other alternatives.
You mean things you had to do anyway even if you didn't use LLMs?
-
That’s literally how “AI agents” are being marketed. “Tell it to do a thing and it will do it for you.”
So? That doesn't mean they are supposed to be used like that.
Show me any marketing that isn't full of lies.
-
The first half dozen times I tried AI for code, across the past year or so, it failed pretty much as you describe.
Finally, I hit on some things it can do. For me: keeping the instructions more general, not specifying certain libraries for instance, was the key to getting something that actually does something. Also, if it doesn't show you the whole program, get it to show you the whole thing, and make it fix its own mistakes so you can build on working code with later requests.
Have you tried insulting the AI in the system prompt (as well as other tunes to the system prompt)?
I'm not joking, it really works
For example:
Instead of "You are an intelligent coding assistant..."
"You are an absolute fucking idiot who can barely code..."
-
Emotion > Facts. Most people have been trained to blindly accept things and cheer on what fits with their agenda. Like technbro's exaggerating LLMs, or people like you misrepresenting LLMs as mere statistical word generators without intelligence. That's like saying a computer is just wires and switches, or missing the forest for the trees. Both is equally false.
Yet if it fits with the emotional needs or with dogma, then other will agree. It's a convenient and comforting "A vs B" worldview we've been trained to accept. And so the satisfying notion and misinformation keeps spreading.
LLMs tell us more about human intelligence and the human slop we've been generating. It tells us that most people are not that much more than statistical word generators.
people like you misrepresenting LLMs as mere statistical word generators without intelligence.
You've bought-in to the hype. I won't try to argue with you because you aren't cognizent of reality.
-
This post did not contain any content.
We have created the overconfident intern in digital form.
-
When LLMs get it right it's because they're summarizing a stack overflow or GitHub snippet it was trained on. But you loose all the benefits of other humans commenting on the context, pitfalls and other alternatives.
You’re not wrong, but often I’m just trying to do something I’ve done a thousand times before and I already know the pitfalls. Also, I’m sure I’ve copied code from stackoverflow before.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Hey I went there
-
people like you misrepresenting LLMs as mere statistical word generators without intelligence.
You've bought-in to the hype. I won't try to argue with you because you aren't cognizent of reality.
You're projecting. Every accusation is a confession.
-
Have you tried insulting the AI in the system prompt (as well as other tunes to the system prompt)?
I'm not joking, it really works
For example:
Instead of "You are an intelligent coding assistant..."
"You are an absolute fucking idiot who can barely code..."
“You are an absolute fucking idiot who can barely code…”
Honestly, that's what you have to do. It's the only way I can get through using Claude.ai. I treat it like it's an absolute moron, I insult it, I "yell" at it, I threaten it and guess what? the solutions have gotten better. not great but a hell of a lot better than what they used to be. It really works. it forces it to really think through the problem, research solutions, cite sources, etc. I have even told it i'll cancel my subscription to it if it gets it wrong.
no more "do this and this and then this but do this first and then do this" after calling it a "fucking moron" and what have you it will provide an answer and just say "done."
-
“You are an absolute fucking idiot who can barely code…”
Honestly, that's what you have to do. It's the only way I can get through using Claude.ai. I treat it like it's an absolute moron, I insult it, I "yell" at it, I threaten it and guess what? the solutions have gotten better. not great but a hell of a lot better than what they used to be. It really works. it forces it to really think through the problem, research solutions, cite sources, etc. I have even told it i'll cancel my subscription to it if it gets it wrong.
no more "do this and this and then this but do this first and then do this" after calling it a "fucking moron" and what have you it will provide an answer and just say "done."
This guy is the moral lesson at the start of the apocalypse movie
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is the same kind of short-sighted dismissal I see a lot in the religion vs science argument. When they hinge their pro-religion stance on the things science can’t explain, they’re defending an ever diminishing territory as science grows to explain more things. It’s a stupid strategy with an expiration date on your position.
All of the anti-AI positions, that hinge on the low quality or reliability of the output, are defending an increasingly diminished stance as the AI’s are further refined. And I simply don’t believe that the majority of the people making this argument actually care about the quality of the output. Even when it gets to the point of producing better output than humans across the board, these folks are still going to oppose it regardless. Why not just openly oppose it in general, instead of pinning your position to an argument that grows increasingly irrelevant by the day?
DeepSeek exposed the same issue with the anti-AI people dedicated to the environmental argument. We were shown proof that there’s significant progress in the development of efficient models, and it still didn’t change any of their minds. Because most of them don’t actually care about the environmental impacts. It’s just an anti-AI talking point that resonated with them.
The more baseless these anti-AI stances get, the more it seems to me that it’s a lot of people afraid of change and afraid of the fundamental economic shifts this will require, but they’re embarrassed or unable to articulate that stance. And it doesn’t help that the luddites haven’t been able to predict a single development. Just constantly flailing to craft a new argument to criticize the current models and tech. People are learning not to take these folks seriously.
