|
| ▲ | neuroticnews25 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Gemini estimated that male cannabis plant leaves I decarboxylated will have negligible thc content and give me mild relaxation at best, the real effect was it was the highest I've ever been. |
| |
| ▲ | hnbad 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | To be fair, I have yet to lead a conversation with Gemini that doesn't just consist of me having to check its responses and point out that they're objectively incorrect only for it to "apologize" and then give me the next wrong answer, while always making sure to end with a new conversation teaser. Granted, I've only been using the free version but I've been getting significantly more mileage out of those from ChatGPT and Claude. I guess it might be a feature that Gemini is more often obviously wrong from the start (e.g. by giving sources that don't support its claims whatsoever) but considering this is the AI from the company that had become synonymous with the concept of trying to find information on the Internet, that's pretty damn pathetic. | | |
| ▲ | someothherguyy an hour ago | parent [-] | | That is because it bases its responses on web searches with hits like comments in threads like these or blog articles that were generated from systems trained based on threads like these from the previous iteration of scrapers and generative language models. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | KeplerBoy 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That is in the training data. Confidently and correctly answering in-distribution questions (possiibly with a tool call) is expected by now. |
|
| ▲ | pistoriusp 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Aren't you missing OP's point entirely? Which is: If the LLM didn't have useful information it would still give you an answer... Helpful or not. |
| |
| ▲ | Gud 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not really, since any LLM will answer all those questions competently.
It's a known fact that LLMs sometimes are wrong and hallucinates an answer, but this is exceedingly rare.
Having access to a decent LLM is like having an expert with me. Are they always right? No, but the analogy with a two year old simply doesn't hold up. | | |
| ▲ | pistoriusp 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Since any LLM will answer all those questions competently That's false. The LLM will only answer competently if it was trained on that data; and if it has enough data to make the correct connections between your question and the "correct" answer. In the case of this article they're specifically saying the LLM has limited training. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | throw0101a 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Not really, since any LLM will answer all those questions competently. How would you know if it didn't? | | |
| ▲ | Gud an hour ago | parent [-] | | I normally research topics thoroughly, if they are important. I don't trust a single source of truth. |
| |
| ▲ | budsniffer952 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Look at the responses in this thread and others, arguing with these people is futile. I now read the absolute dumbest shit on HackerNews when it comes to AI. "It can't write code! It's always wrong!" And no one ever demonstrates any of it, even if it is counter to the experiences of others. I'd feel bad if most of these people weren't total jerks... | |
| ▲ | desterothx 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | yes, except experts are capable of saying I don't know, while LLMs will rather give any answer than do so most of the time |
|
|
