this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
51 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck AI

3429 readers
839 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There have been multiple things which have gone wrong with AI for me but these two pushed me over the brink. This is mainly about LLMs but other AI has also not been particularly helpful for me.

Case 1

I was trying to find the music video from where a screenshot was taken.

I provided o4 mini the image and asked it where it is from. It rejected it saying that it does not discuss private details. Fair enough. I told it that it is xyz artist. It then listed three of their popular music videos, neither of which was the correct answer to my question.

Then I started a new chat and described in detail what the screenshot was. It once again regurgitated similar things.

I gave up. I did a simple reverse image search and found the answer in 30 seconds.

Case 2

I wanted a way to create a spreadsheet for tracking investments which had xyz columns.

It did give me the correct columns and rows but the formulae for calculations were off. They were almost correct most of the time but almost correct is useless when working with money.

I gave up. I manually made the spreadsheet with all the required details.

Why are LLMs so wrong most of the time? Aren’t they processing high quality data from multiple sources? I just don’t understand the point of even making these softwares if all they can do is sound smart while being wrong.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 hour ago

Why are LLMs so wrong most of the time? Aren’t they processing high quality data from multiple sources?

Well that's the thing. LLMs don't generally "process" data as humans would. They don't understand the text they're generating. So they can't check their answers against reality.

(Except for Grok 4, but it's apparently checking its answers to make sure they agree with Elon Musk's Tweets, which is kind of the opposite of accuracy.)

I just don’t understand the point of even making these softwares if all they can do is sound smart while being wrong.

As someone who lived through the dotcom boom of the 2000s, and the crypto booms of 2017 and 2021, the AI boom is pretty obviously yet another fad. The point is to make money - from both consumers and investors - and AI is the new buzzword to bring those dollars in.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I almost always get perfect responses, but I'm very limited in what I'll input. Often I'm just using ChatGPT to remember a word or event I've forgotten. Pretty much 100% accurate on that bit.

Couldn't explain how I know what will and won't work, but I have a sense of it. Also, the farther you drill into a thing, the more off-topic it gets. I'm almost always one and done with a prompt.

[–] Outwit1294@lemmy.today 2 points 7 hours ago

You are getting more surface level information from it which is probably going to be correct unless there is a major problem in training data.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 72 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 children)

Aren’t they processing high quality data from multiple sources?

Here's where the misunderstanding comes in, I think. And it's not the high quality data or the multiple sources. It's the "processing" part.

It's a natural human assumption to imagine that a thinking machine with access to a huge repository of data would have little trouble providing useful and correct answers. But the mistake here is in treating these things as thinking machines.

That's understandable. A multi-billion dollar propaganda machine has been set up to sell you that lie.

In reality, LLMs are word prediction machines. They try to predict the words that would likely follow other words. They're really quite good at it. The underlying technology is extremely impressive, allowing them to approximate human conversation in a way that is quite uncanny.

But what you have to grasp is that you're not interacting with something that thinks. There isn't even an attempt to approximate a mind. Rather, what you have is a confabulation engine; a machine for producing plausible fictions. It does this by creating unbelievably huge matrices of words - literally operating in billions of dimensions at once, graphs with many times more axes than we have letters - and probabilistically associating them with each other. It's all very clever, but what it produces is 100% fake, made up, totally invented.

Now, because of the training data they've been fed, those made up answers will, depending on the question, sometimes ends up being right. For certain types of question they can actually be right quite a lot of the time. For other types of question, almost never. But the point is, they're only ever right by accident. The "AI" is always, always constructing a fiction. That fiction just sometimes aligns with reality.

[–] Outwit1294@lemmy.today 9 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Confabulation is what it is, you are right.

Why on Earth are investors backing this? Usually money filters out useless endeavours.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Oh you sweet summer child.

If you remember anything from this thread, remember this: capitalist markets do not care whether something is useful or useless. Capitalist markets care whether something will make money for its investors. If something totally useless will make money for its investors, the market will throw money at it.

See: tulips, pet rocks, ethanol, cryptocurrency. And now AI.

Because people are stupid. And people will spend money on stupid shit. And the empty hand of capitalism will support whatever people will spend money on, whether it's stupid shit or not.

(And because, unfortunately, AI tools are amazing at gathering information from their users. And I think the big tech companies are really aggressively pushing AI because they want very much to have users talking to their AI tools about what they need and what they want and what their interests are, because that's the kind of big data they can make a lot of money from.)

[–] xangadix@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago

money filters out useless endeavours.

That might have been true once, if ever, but it's certainly not true anymore. Actually fabulation is where most of the money is. Most 'investors' have gotten rich by accident and by an incredible amount of luck. They will tell you it was hard work, swear and blood but that is never true, it's being born in the right family and being in the right place at the time. These people aren't any smarter or better then you and me. And are just as susceptible to bullshit as you and me. Maybe even more so, because they think there exceptional skill has gotten them where they are. This means they will put there money quite easily in any endeavour that sounds plausible and/or profitable on their mind, but what usually is complete nonsense. What is more, once a few of these have put money on the table, fomo kicks in and all the bro's from the gym want in too, kicking of a cycle of complete and utter waste of money. All the while, telling everyone that this, THIS, this what the have put money on, is the next big thing.

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

See Quantum computing.

Once governments started to set aside funding for it, the scams began. Google, Microsoft, they're all in on it

DWave is history, an AI example Builder was revealed to be 700 underpaid Indians.

There's like two useful algorithms right now. That we also can't use because we cannot make matrices of qubits that are stable.

Once the money and hype train starts rolling, it becomes about money men exploiting that hype to multiply their money.. and the technology is completey secondary.

[–] themoken@startrek.website 2 points 4 hours ago

Eh, I'll agree that quantum computing hasn't delivered much yet, but it shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as LLMs. There's a difference between tech that hasn't become practical yet, and tech that is a gigantic grift pretending to be something it will categorically never achieve.

[–] donuts@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Saving this! Great write-up

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago

Everyone here should already know, but read the wheresyouredat blog to fully understand the Business Idiot.

[–] kayohtie@pawb.social 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Even the "thinking engine" ones are wild to watch in motion, if you ever turn on debugging. It's like watching someone substitute the autosuggest of your keyboard for what words appear in your head when trying to think through something. It just generates something and then generates again using THAT output (multiple times maybe involved for each step).

I watched one I installed locally for Home Assistant, as a test for various operations, just start repeating itself over and over to nearly everything before it just spat out something completely wrong.

Garbage engines.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

I assume by "thinking engine" you mean "Reasoning AI".

Reasoning AI is just more bullshit. What happens is that they produce the output the way they always do - by guessing at a sequence of words that is statistically adjacent to the input they're given - but then what they do is produce a randomly generated "Chain of thought" which is invented in the same way as the result; just pure statistical word association. Essentially they create the output the same way that a non-reasoning LLM does, then they give r themselves the prompt "Write a chain of thought for this output." There's a little extra stuff going on where they sort of check their own output, but in essence that's just done by running the model multiple times and picking the output they converge on. So, just weighting the randomness, basically.

I'm simplifying a lot here obviously, but that's pretty much what's going on.

[–] thegr8goldfish@startrek.website 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I like to think of them as artificial con men. They sound great. They have confidence and are complimentary and are very agreeable, but they will tell you what they think you want to hear. Whether or not what they are telling you is truthful isn't even part of the equation.

[–] Outwit1294@lemmy.today 2 points 7 hours ago

Yeah, confidence is the problem. And they don’t accept that they don’t know something.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The first time I ever used it I got a bugged response. I asked it to give me a short summary of the 2022 Super Bowl, and it told me Patrick Mahomes won the Super Bowl with a field goal kick.

Now, those two things separately are true. Mahomes won. The game was won on a field goal.

The LLM just looks at the probability that the sentences it's generating are correct based on its training data, and it smashed two correct statements together thinking that was the most probable reasonable response.

It does that a lot. Don't use GenAI without checking its output.

[–] Outwit1294@lemmy.today 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I have noticed that it is terrible when you know at least a little about the topic.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago

Or a more accurate way to say it is AI is terrible all the time but it is easier to notice when you know at least a little about the topic.

[–] RockBottom@feddit.org 4 points 15 hours ago

Much of the Input Comedy from the Web now, not the web 2003.

[–] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I've used it a few times to quickly check some reference values, calculations and symptoms (research/physiology) and most of the time its fine but occasionally it spits out some of the craziest shit i've ever seen, like dangerously wrong but its just as confident.

[–] Outwit1294@lemmy.today 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The confidence is the problem. If a human does not know the answer, they say that they don’t know. LLMs seem to not know that it is an option.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Confidence isn't a good description either, since there is no thought proces or motivation. It is a bullshit machine, spewing out something that looks like a coherent response.

[–] Outwit1294@lemmy.today 1 points 7 hours ago

It does sound more professional than most humans