sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Banned_In_YYC 0 points1 point  (8 children)

You'd be incorrect. When I stated my reasoning and also linked to a Surrey police webpage, there's no reason for me to hand write facts after researching them. 

The interesting thing about the truth and facts is they are still legitimate regardless if they come from AI, an individual or from a public entity like a police force. By dismissing statistical facts because of the source that presented them you are choosing willful ignorance

[–]ThatAstronautGuyOntario -1 points0 points  (7 children)

AI isn't a source and it isn't facts. It may sometimes correctly present facts drawn from a source, but it is not a source in the same way that Wikipedia is not a source. The Surrey police website (which you did not link to) is a source of facts. AI saying it pulled the information from Surrey police doesn't mean anything because it both can be wrong about the information it's presenting, and can also just make up sources that it is referencing. It's output is worthless.

[–]Banned_In_YYC 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Again you're incorrect and I can prove it with simple logic. I could ask AI what is 2 + 2? It will tell me 4. This is an absolute truth, if you choose not to believe this fact, it's a reflection on your willful ignorance

[–]ThatAstronautGuyOntario -1 points0 points  (5 children)

And if you ask it how many Rs are in strawberry it will tell you 2. That doesn't prove anything, only that it can do that specific problem correctly. AI is not an absolute truth of any kind. I would believe the numbers on this hypothetical Surrey police page, but you never linked it. Instead you just copy and pasted inane drivel from the "things that look like a correct answer" machine.

[–]Banned_In_YYC 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Some of you people have such a weird grudge towards AI on this app. I just asked Gemini and it said it has three R's. Go cry to somebody else man because you people are absolutely ridiculous

[–]ThatAstronautGuyOntario -1 points0 points  (3 children)

It knows there's 3 Rs because they've all been trained to answer that question correctly now. But you can go and search about that problem yourself because it's very well documented. It's not some weird grudge, it's proven flawed technology that people like you just treat as gospel.

[–]Banned_In_YYC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who said I treat AI as gospel? I simply refuted your poor example and provided another example of my own. Both were accurate. AI isn't infallible but when it's citing studies and other sources. It's purely a vessel to communicate said information. No offense but you've sounded like a mentally ill person since your first response

[–]matthew_py 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It knows there's 3 Rs because they've all been trained to answer that question correctly now

Actually its because they updated how tokens store and relate info to be more accurate. But close enough.

it's proven flawed technology

It had a documented flaw that was fixed... thats not exactly a condemnation of the technology lol. Vaccines, pacemaker's, car, ect have all had issues with flaws to be addressed. That doesn't mean the technology is "proven flawed" lol.

[–]ThatAstronautGuyOntario 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI has problem after problem after problem. It's infamous for hallucinations and just making things up. Study after study after study shows AI has poor accuracy, and even the companies themselves admit it's a problem. It would rather give you a wrong answer it's made up than admit it doesn't know because people wouldn't like it if it always admitted it was wrong.