It's not completely random, but I'm telling you it fucked up, it fucked up badly, time after time, and I had to check every single thing manually. It's correctness run never lasted beyond a handful. If you build something using some equation it invented you're insane and should quit engineering before you hurt someone.

And it won’t be until humans can agree on what’s a fact and true vs not.. there is always someone or some group spreading mis/dis-information

Why are you giving it data. It's a chat and language tool. It's not data based. You need something trained to work for that specific use. I think Wolfram Alpha has better tools for that.

I wouldn't trust it to calculate how many patio stones I need to build a project. But I trust it to tell me where a good source is on a topic or if a quote was said by who ever or if I need to remember something but I only have vague pieces like old timey historical witch burning related factoid about villagers who pulled people through a hole in the church wall or what was a the princess who was skeptic and sent her scientist to villages to try to calm superstitious panic .

Other uses are like digging around my computer and seeing what processes do what. How concepts work regarding the think I'm currently learning. So many excellent users. But I fucking wouldn't trust it to do any kind of calculation.

You just can't talk to people, period, you are just a dick, you were also just proven to be stupider than a fucking LLM, have a nice day

You should give Claude Code a shot if you have a Claude subscription. I'd say this is where AI actually does a decent job: picking up human slack, under supervision, not replacing humans at anything. AI tools won't suddenly be productive enough to employ, but I as a professional can use it to accelerate my own workflow. It's actually where the risk of them taking jobs is real: for example, instead of 10 support people you can have 2 who just supervise the responses of an AI.

But of course, the Devil's in the detail. The only reason this is cost effective is because of VC money subsidizing and hiding the real cost of running these models.

Why are you giving it data

Because there's a button for that.

It’s output is dependent on the input

This thing that you said... It's false.

Wow. 30% accuracy was the high score!
From the article:

Testing agents at the office

For a reality check, CMU researchers have developed a benchmark to evaluate how AI agents perform when given common knowledge work tasks like browsing the web, writing code, running applications, and communicating with coworkers.

They call it TheAgentCompany. It's a simulation environment designed to mimic a small software firm and its business operations. They did so to help clarify the debate between AI believers who argue that the majority of human labor can be automated and AI skeptics who see such claims as part of a gigantic AI grift.

the CMU boffins put the following models through their paces and evaluated them based on the task success rates. The results were underwhelming.

Gemini-2.5-Pro (30.3 percent)
Claude-3.7-Sonnet (26.3 percent)
Claude-3.5-Sonnet (24 percent)
Gemini-2.0-Flash (11.4 percent)
GPT-4o (8.6 percent)
o3-mini (4.0 percent)
Gemini-1.5-Pro (3.4 percent)
Amazon-Nova-Pro-v1 (1.7 percent)
Llama-3.1-405b (7.4 percent)
Llama-3.3-70b (6.9 percent),
Qwen-2.5-72b (5.7 percent),
Llama-3.1-70b (1.7 percent)
Qwen-2-72b (1.1 percent).

"We find in experiments that the best-performing model, Gemini 2.5 Pro, was able to autonomously perform 30.3 percent of the provided tests to completion, and achieve a score of 39.3 percent on our metric that provides extra credit for partially completed tasks," the authors state in their paper

That looks better. Even with a fair coin, 10 heads in a row is almost impossible.

And if you are feeding the output back into a new instance of a model then the quality is highly likely to degrade.

Did the autocomplete told you to answer this? Don't answer, actually, save some energy.

Now I'm curious, what's the average score for humans?

you're right, the dumb of AI is completely comparable to the dumb of human, there's no difference worth talking about, sorry i even spoke the fuck up

I asked Claude 3.5 Haiku to write me a quine in COBOL in the bs2000 dialect. Claude does now that creating a perfect quine in COBOL is challenging due to the need to represent the self-referential nature of the code. After a few suggestions Claude restated its first draft, without proper BS2000 incantations, without a perform statement, and without any self-referential redefines. It's a lot of work. I stopped caring and moved on.

For those who wonder: https://sourceforge.net/p/gnucobol/discussion/lounge/thread/495d8008/ has an example.

Colour me unimpressed. I dread the day when they force the use of 'AI' on us at work.

There's a sleep button on my laptop. Doesn't mean I would use it.

I'm just trying to say you're saying the feature that everyone kind of knows doesn't work. Chatgpt is not trained to do calculations well.

I just like technology and I think and fully believe the left hatred of it is not logical. I believe it stems from a lot of media be and headlines. Why there's this push From media is a question I would like to know more. But overall, I see a lot of the same makers of bullshit yellow journalism for this stuff on the left as I do for similar bullshit on the right wing spaces towards other things.

Is there really a plan to use this for 911 services??

sounds like the fault of the researchers not to build better tests or understand the limits of the software to use it right

Are you arguing they should have built a test that makes AI perform better? How are you offended on behalf of AI?

No worries.

Why would they be right beyond word sequence frecuencies?

Again with dismissing the evidence of my own eyes!

I wasn't asking it to do calculations, I was asking it to put the data into a super formulaic sentence. It was good at the first couple of rows then it would get stuck in a rut and start lying. It was crap. A seven year old would have done it far better, and if I'd told a seven year old that they had made a couple of mistakes and to check it carefully, they would have done.

Again, I didn't read it in a fucking article, I read it on my fucking computer screen, so if you'd stop fucking telling me I'm stupid for using it the way it fucking told me I could use it, or that I'm stupid for believing what the media tell me about LLMs, when all I'm doing is telling you my own experience, you'd sound a lot less like a desperate troll or someone who is completely unable to assimilate new information that differs from your dogma.

Whereas if you ask a human to do the same thing ten times, the probability that they get all ten right is astronomically higher than 0.0000059049.