But was that figure provided by AI?

Even if not, we all know that 793% of all statistics are invented.

If something is inaccurately presented as being the truth, then it is a lie of omission because it is dishonest about the fact that the information isn't actually known.

Gemini is exceptionally bad, as LLMs go. I really have no idea why it is so dreadful, even compared to other LLMs. It isn't context window. and it doesn't seem to be training material either.

Cyber Implications have been noted. Mondas security is to be Cyber Vibed until we have Cyber Security capable of defeating The Doctor.

When I test the different AI systems, Google's AI system loses track of complex problems incredibly quickly. It's great on simple stuff, but for complex stuff, it's useless.

Unfortunately.... advice, overviews, etc, are very very complex problems indeed, which means that you're hitting the weakspot of their system.

It often gives excellent answers, but when it doesn't, the results are strange.
I asked for help writing code for an obscure hobby CNC control system.
It totally invented function calls and invented plausible documentation to explain how they worked and how to call them.
It totally missed the easy answer that involved calling an existing simple function and writing no new code.
If the answer doesn't exist on the internet, it appears to just make one up

I've designed a few machines - some rather more insane than others - in meticulous detail using AI. What I have not done, so far, is get an engineer to review the designs to see if any of them can be turned into something that would be usable. My suspicion is that a few might be made workable, but that has to be verified.

Having said that, producing the design probably took a significant amount of compute power and a significant amount of water. If I'd fermented that same quantity of water and provided wine to an engineering team that cost the same as the computing resources consumed, I'd probably have better designs.But, that too, is unverified. As before, it's perfectly verifiable, it just hasn't been so far.

If an engineer looks at the design and dies laughing, then I'm probably liable for funeral costs but at least there would be absolutely no question as to how good AI is at challenging engineering concepts. On the other hand, if they pause and say that there's actually a neat idea in a few of the concepts, then it becomes a question of how much of that was ideas I put in and how much is stuff the AI actually put together. Again, though, we'd have a metric.

That, to me, is the crux. It's all fine and well arguing over whether AI is any good or not (and, tbh, I would say that my feeling is that you're absolutely right), but this should be definitively measured and quantified, not assumed. There may be far better benchmarks than the designs I have - I'm good but I'm not one of the greats, so the odds of someone coming up with better measures seems high. But we're not seeing those, we're just seeing toy tests by journalists and that's not a good measure of real-world usability.

If no such benchmark values actually appear, then I think it's fair to argue that it's because nobody believes any AI out there is going to do well at them.

(I can tell you now, Gemini won't. Gemini is next to useless -- but on the Other Side.)

This means you shoud NOT, under any circumstance, run Claude at 88mph. Unless you really want to.

...is not a crime
If he committed crimes, he should face justice in a court of law, with trustworthy evidence

Off gassed hydrogen has ~ 37x the warming potential of CO2 on the climate. Not because hydrogen causes warming itself, but because its presence in the atmosphere extends the lifespan of methane by bonding with radicals that would otherwise break down methane sooner. It's not something we want to see any country or industry adopting.

How about we tax the hell out of OpenAI and other companies who have ingested and profited from IP and disburse it via a compensation fund. Artists, academics, scientists, journalists, authors, photographers, philosophers, theologians, statisticians, bloggers, movie makers, forum posters etc. etc. Anyone who has produced content that is hosted on a website or physically available that was used to train AIs should be able to claim compensation. And require these companies to disclose every single public source of information they've scraped, with what frequency and how they store the information so we know exactly who they've been ripping off.

Do you work for Samsung or are you just performatively being a contrarian?

You're right that PCs are just as bad but at least you can uninstall that garbage and even reformat the entire PC if you like. This is like Lenovo, Dell etc baking actual malware into the firmware that you cannot get rid of, only disable.

Still, Slashdot doesn't have to play along with their weasel wording. For example, "ergonomic collars that deliver an electric pulse" - just say "shock collar". Don't help them whitewash what they're talking about.

About as noteworthy as being able to build a computer with discrete transistors, core memory and 20mb hard drives the size of washing machines.