Ouch.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    They omitted the conversation too. Really makes you wonder how the bot ended up saying that…

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Holy smokes I stand corrected. The chatbot actually misunderstood the context to the point it told the human to die, out of the blue.

        It’s not every day you get shown a source that proves you wrong. Thanks kind stranger

        • kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Yeah holy shit, screenshotting this in case Google takes it down, but this leap is wild

        • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          One thing that throws me off here is the double response. I haven’t used Gemini a ton but it has never once given me multiple replies. It is always one statement per my one statement. You can see at the end here there’s a double response. It makes me think that there’s some user input missing. There’s also missing text in the user statements leading up to it as well which makes me wonder what the person was asking in full. Something about this still smells fishy to me but I’ve heard enough goofy things about how AIs learn weird shit to believe it’s possible.

          • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            43 minutes ago

            Idk what you mean “double response”. The user typed a statement, not a question, and the AI responded with its weird answer.

            I think the lack of a question or specific request in the user text led to the weird response.

        • megane-kun@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          No problem. I understand the skepticism here, especially since the article in the OP is a bit light on the details.


          EDIT:

          Details on the OP article is fine enough, but it didn’t link sources.

    • CTDummy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Even if they included it, it changes fuck all imo. We’ve known for a long time now these things hallucinate or presumably throw a Hail Mary as to what comes next conversationally/prediction wise. Also, as the other poster pointed out, with the author referring to a 29 year old woman as “girl” probably tells you all you need to know about journalistic integrity on that site.

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Low quality journalism strikes again.

        Love seeing commenters spot it and call it.

        That’s what the comment section is for!

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Ive seen it elsewhere and it was just normal questions related to some sociology homework about different types of concentration.