Since pertinent information was withheld (that it didn't know), then by your own post you acknowledge it was a lie of omission.

The stupidity of people these days is truly beyond belief. And, yes, get the f off my lawn.

We learned back in the 80s that trying to get a neural net to emphasise what you want is actually very difficult. What it will tend to emphasise are the assumptions that underly the test data, and that's usually a completely different sort of fiction.

When you have a product made from leftover rejected parts the supply is guaranteed to be limited.

So you hype it as "for a limited time" and people go hog wild with FOMO.

coming soon: "The Neo is Back."

Yeah, "LLM's are gods" and "statistical ML networks are good at finding defective code patterns" are extremely different claims.

The people who are True Believers on both extremes look pretty silly.

I appreciate really good closed captioning while having no use for chatbots. Both ends get to call me a heretic!

Just watch the patches and CVE's trickling out.

It's not like OpenBSD is going to sit on a vulnerability for 90 days or whatever.

Issuing a patch doesn't give away the details about how it was found.

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.

To be fair I just wasted a week tracking down a radio telemetry problem because of a forum post that many people said worked great but it definitely pulled a pin high that was supposed to be low, which shut off an antenna.

Only diving into the spec sheet and some sample embedded code convinced me that the forum post was exactly wrong and after making a simple change to do the opposite did all the telemetry devices mesh up and start reporting correctly.

So ... how does 90% compare to human content?

A wrinkle is that everybody knows humans are flawed and too many people treaty the LLM as omniscient.

Why should anybody care if this drives electric bills up to $1000/mo for the typical household?

We have unlimited energy, no?

Dipshits aren't creating a global energy crisis right now.

The world economy isn't headed for a global depression.

Natgas should be burned for LLM hallucinations and cats driving motorcycles, not converted into fertilizer to stave off a massive African famine.

Western woke governments haven't spent the past fifty years blocking new energy generation at every opportunity.

Right?

Don't invite the guillotines, dudes.

Why not notify their electric company to cut their power to halt infringement?

Or their water company so the house is uninhabitable?

The Courts need to recognize that Internet has become a necessary utility and that the music companies need to deal with the individual directly through the Courts, not in a lazy clandestine way.

Grande seems based.

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.

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.