this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
13 points (68.6% liked)

Artificial Ignorance

57 readers
15 users here now

In this community we share the best (worst?) examples of Artificial "Intelligence" being completely moronic. Did an AI give you the totally wrong answer and then in the same sentence contradict itself? Did it misquote a Wikipedia article with the exact wrong answer? Maybe it completely misinterpreted your image prompt and "created" something ridiculous.

Post your screenshots here, ideally showing the prompt and the epic stupidity.

Let's keep it light and fun, and embarrass the hell out of these Artificial Ignoramuses.

All languages welcome, but an English explanation would be appreciated to keep a common method of communication. Maybe use AI to do the translation for you...

founded 3 days ago
MODERATORS
 

I was watching a video on orangutans and it made me wonder how well google would handle this question.

Didn't get it quite right... But maybe it's a subtle dig?

Note: I accidentally scrolled the "AI Overview" notation off before taking the first screenshot, but it is there:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It specifically says "great apes are closely related to humans".

[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 3 points 12 hours ago

Great apes are closely related to humans BECAUSE humans are great apes. That idea is offensive to many religious zealots, so it's not a fact often brought up in any conversation unless specifically prompted. This isn't a logical fallacy you've uncovered, just a cultural bias and stigma. Of course a language model will also avoid the topic unless specifically prompted because it's trained on people and articles that ALL do the very same philosophical dance and mental gymnastics to avoid inciting the ignorant zealots.

[–] DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I tend to think of "inculsion in the same taxonomical category" as a fairly close relationship. this is ambiguous wording, nothing more.

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca -2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree. If you say "oranges are closely related to citrus fruit" you're implying they're not citrus fruit. It's not ambiguous.

But.... I can see the difference with "great apes" in the colloquial sense.

However, I changed the question to "What are the great apes scientifically" and it still left humans off, and this time didn't even mention humans.

I think that is outright, unambiguously, incorrect. (And ChatGPT agrees fwiw, though it left bonobos off the list, so... )

[–] DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz 1 points 17 hours ago

Uh. It's subtle but idk i think you might be more right than I gave you credit for at first. I still don't think it's a good example of what you're shooting for in this c/ but I see your pov.