Google are well-known, like Meta, for making products that never achieve any kind of traction, and are cancelled soon after launch.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've never managed to get Gemini to actually do anything useful (and I'm a regular user of other AI tools). I don't know what metric it gets into the top 2 on, but I've found it almost completely useless.

Haven't Google also famously faked a phone call with an AI some years ago for an event?

https://www.axios.com/2018/05/17/google-ai-demo-questions

True. We at least had a period where they weren't so blatant about it. But now it's robbery in blind daylight.

>>> confused the AI.

>> I will die on this hill. It isn’t AI. You can’t confuse it.

> They "poisoned the context" which is clearly what they meant.

The "demo" was clearly prescriptive and not genuinely interactive. One could easily make the argument that the kayfabe was more like an IVR[0] interaction.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_voice_response

“The blue square is red.”

“The blue square is blue.”

“The blue square is green.”

The future is here.

The ability to think. If it can't think in the first place, it can't get confused. Whether it's "real AI" or not depends on semantics of that you consider AI to be:

* If you think it's something that resembles intelligence enough to be useful in the same way intelligence is and to seem to be intelligence, this is clearly it. The "plant based meats" of AI.

* If you think it means actual intelligence that was manufactured by a human, this is not that. It's shockingly impressive auto correct, and it's useful, but it's not actually thinking. This would be "artificially created intelligence"; in essence, real intelligence with an artificial origin. The lab grown meat of AI.

For the latter, I really think it needs reasoning ability that isn't based on language. Plenty of animals can think and reason without depending on language. Language is a great carrier of intelligence, which is why LLMs work so well, but language is not the foundation of intelligence.

That said, I think "confused" is a fine enough anthropomorphization. I refer to things like Bluetooth issues as the machine getting confused all the time. Back in the day, Netflix would often have problems with the wrong image showing for a show, and I called that "Netflix getting confused". We know it's not actually getting confused.

If by "genuinely confused" we are talking about what is generally called the emotion "confusion", then you need meta-cognition to even recognize your thinking is confused in order to then experience it. LLMs can model reflection by using their own output as input, but otherwise lack meta-cognitive processes. Through reflection they can later recognize what they did previously was wrong, but they will never experience "what I am currently thinking seems wrong/does not fit".

However "confusion" can also mean "mistaking one thing for another" or simply "doing the wrong thing", which is something computer programs have been able to fuck up since forever.

Just try asking an AI about the Seahorse Emoji (insert close-yet-comically-incorrect emojis since they won't render here):

_________

ChatGPT: There is a seahorse emoji: — wait, no, that’s a lobster. Okay, for real now:

Here it is: � Seahorse — argh, it’s still not showing properly here.

Let’s try again:

(hedgehog) (sauropod) (T-rex) (otter) (seal) (lobster) …but no actual (squid) or (mermaid) matches…

Okay, deep breath — I checked the official Unicode list. And you’re right: The seahorse emoji does exist — it’s — no, okay really:

(hedgehog) (hippo) (peacock) Still nothing?

Wait — turns out, I was wrong, and you’re right to call me out.

There is a seahorse emoji:

— no!

_________

https://ibb.co/GfpWRXCz

Capacity for will, I would imagine the OP may respond. I'm not averse to the position.

> Just get text-to-speech to slowly read you the recipe.

Even this feels like overkill, when a person can just glance down at a piece of paper.

I don’t know about others, but I like to double check what I’m doing. Simply having a reference I can look at would be infinitely better than something taking to me, which would need to repeat itself.

You could imagine some utility to something that actually worked if it allowed you to continue working / not have to clean a hand and get your phone out while cooking. (Not a ton of utility, but some). But if it stumbles over basic questions, I just can't see how it's better than opening a recipe and leaning your phone against the backsplash.

Or pick up a bottle of bulgogi sauce?