• tiredofsametab@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    15 hours ago

    A statistical model predicted that “in heat” with no upper-case H nor quotes, was more likely to refer to the biological condition. Don’t get me wrong: I think these things are dumb, but that was a fully predictable result. (‘…the movie “Heat”’ would probably get you there).

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      As a comparison I ran the same all lower case query in bing and got the answer about the movie because asking about a movie is statistically more likely than asking if a human is in heat. Google’a ai is worse than fucking bing, while google’s old serach algorith consistently had the right answers.

      Google made itself worse by replacing a working system with ai.

      • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Kagi quick answers for comparison gets this tweet, but now it thinks that heat is not the movie kind lol

        The AI ouroboros in action

      • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        It might be the way Bing is tokenizing and/or how far back it’s looking to connect things when compared to Google.

    • Lumidaub@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It’s not just any human though, it’s an actor, so movie related words should statistically be more likely.

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      15 hours ago

      While I get your point of the capital H thing, Google’s AI itself decided to put “heat” in quotes all on its own…

    • wander1236@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I tried the search myself and the non-AI results that aren’t this Bluesky post are pretty useless, but at least they’re useless without using two small towns’ worth of electricity

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Non-AI results are not going to generally include sites about how something isn’t true unless it is a common misconception.