• sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      13·
      12 days ago

      Well you see in the US, the vehicle just becomes the same legal entity as the owner, after a certain number of years.

      EDIT

      And when you hit the age you qualify for retriement, well they just roll back ‘the odometer’, as a kind of traditional joke, reflected in some records.

  • ceenote@lemmy.world
    1531·
    12 days ago

    Bear in mind, these are averages, not medians. They can be thrown off by the relatively few Americans who weigh 100,000,000+ lbs each.

  • Gork
    723·
    12 days ago

    By golly, this just shows us that we need AI in everything now!

      • Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world
        16·
        12 days ago

        “Adenosine/atropine, it’s one of those ‘A’ drugs. Just give them a few milligrams and see what happens. We’ll go from there.”

      • darkstar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        11 days ago

        War is not inconsequential are you kidding me?? Have you not seen the profit margins?? Have you not seen the Dow?? /s

    • fartographer@lemmy.world
      81·
      12 days ago

      I’m so glad that I invested in a 60 lb bag of cement last year! In 50-59 years, I’m gonna be able to sell this bag for a fortune!

  • Cris_Citrus@piefed.zipEnglish
    55·
    12 days ago

    As funny as this is, Gemini was essentially broken on release. For context this is a current response

    Its fun to laugh at how stupid it was, but the fact its gotten better honestly just increases the risk that someone will believe a hallucination and bad information proliferates because its embedded in largely good information making it appear trustworthy, and if you don’t know the answer then you dont know when it’s confidently wrong. And it increases the risk that AI usage will grow as people decide they think its helpful, with harmful implications for the environment and labor.

    It would frankly be nice if had stayed that stupid, it would be much less harmful that way

      • Cris_Citrus@piefed.zipEnglish
        3·
        12 days ago

        Yes its my understanding that other models are generally considered much better. I don’t think I’ve ever really seen anyone glaze Gemini though. If you’re talking about my comment you’re replying to, I’m not sure I’d agree that saying its now capable of giving a vaguely competent and accurate sounding answer that isnt complete garbage is glazing 😅

        Do you see folks aside from google marketing people hyping up Gemini in comparison to other models? (I dont follow things super closely so I may be kinda out of the loop)

        • Gork
          3·
          12 days ago

          Gemini is near the bottom of the pack for me personally. It once suggested to me that my gasoline powered lawn mower doesn’t need an oil change 🙄

          • Cris_Citrus@piefed.zipEnglish
            4·
            12 days ago

            Out of curiosity, which do you think produces the most helpful outputs? I care a lot about how technology harms or helps people, and honestly the more capable ai gets the more I’m concerned that without regulatory guard rails its going to do an incredible amount of harm. So I’ve tried to at least keep up with vaguely where its at, but I’ve mostly just used chatGPT, though I’ve tried to limit my usage cause I don’t like the way it feels like it impacts me mentally

            Mostly it has seemed better at finding burried information than a search engine, but very unreliable for certain other kinds of tasks. Weirdly it has seemed difficult to predict what kinds of tasks it will perform well, and which it’ll butcher

            • Gork
              1·
              11 days ago

              I haven’t tried Claude or Grok so I can’t speak to their outputs, other than the latter being known for it’s Mecha-Hitlerness. ChatGPT can simultaneously be smart and yet super dumb at times, and Alexa is pretty aggressive with marketing products off Amazon (go figure). Microsoft Copilot is not very useful because it can’t do stuff that you’d expect an AI integrated into an OS is capable of. For instance, I can’t just tell it to batch rename stuff inside Windows Explorer without having to do through a PowerShell script that I would have to execute (which any LLM can generate anyway).

              I’ve mostly been using it to help me make 3D models, surprisingly enough. It is pretty capable with OpenSCAD with a decent amount of hand holding. But again it can be dumb (I had to explain to it how a handle works lol).

              I only use it sparingly at my actual job and only as a double check or grammar check as it more frequently makes mistakes that are less obvious to catch than in 3D modeling.

    • Furbag@pawb.social
      1·
      11 days ago

      I still get hilariously bad, wildly inaccurate or false responses from search engine AI.

      If the answer isn’t in the training data or easily searchable on the web, it will make shit up and lie to you with the confidence of a used car salesman.

      It’s not always this egregious, but it can be. I still see AI messing up the “how many letters are in this word” prompts years after I first discovered that it was a thing.

      • Cris_Citrus@piefed.zipEnglish
        2·
        11 days ago

        Yeah, honestly its worse at “how many characters are in this word” kinds of questions than just about anything else. Asking what time it is in other places sometimes yields similar nonsense

        And, at the same time, sometimes its able to find things that exist somewhere on the web that I simply cannot find because search engines are a broken disaster. I was looking for short, wide, aquarium stem plants like starugyne repens, but that would be better for a low tech aquarium- low tech plant alternatives to high tech ones feels like a thing that 100% exists somewhere in discussion on the web. Search engines found nothing. ChatGPT found me hygrophila corymbosa ‘compact’. Which is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, but that search engines were just incapable of finding. And honestly thats largely an indictment of search engines. It wouldn’t surprise me if google in part was making a cost benefit analysis on allowing search to be broken since it probably makes people more dependent on ai results.

        But thats an easily verifyable thing, where the information exists out there somewhere, and neccisarily I need to look it up to use the information in anyway. I’m more “looking for something” that I know probably exists, than trying to learn something or get information in a conventional sense.

        I find its more successful when its organizing existing information around a question that isnt the exact same blog post or article that every relevant source has written because it has optimal SEO and appeals to the widest number of people within that niche (eg: “low tech stem plants” except I’m looking for one with an atypical growth pattern so none of those articles help and google just shows me a million useless pages because theyre almost what I want, and there are millions of them)

        On the other hand I went looking for an old quote from a book about antisemitism and it seemed to just keep making shit up and saying it was from other translations of the book, even as I gave it more and more of the actual quote when I found it without ai. Which was quite a while back now, so maybe I need to try that again.

        But the more functional it gets the more risk it carries, and the more it can worm its way into people’s lives and reshape social contracts that society has always been built on, while doing lots of environmental harm :/

    • KSP Atlas
      21·
      12 days ago

      I’ve had the duckduckgo ai (which I have since disabled) relatively recently hallucinate that the walking speed of a game character was like mach 4.5

      And it considered that speed “slow+”

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    231·
    12 days ago

    Every time these get posted, I go and check if it’s true. And then I realize I deliberately used Google to read an AI summary and feel sick about it. I’ve been tricked into giving them traffic

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        133·
        12 days ago

        Because almost all of these nonsensical summaries are from when it was newly implemented so we’re all making fun of something from a couple years ago

        • Kalothar@lemmy.ca
          12·
          12 days ago

          Not always, I’ll screen shot some if I see I get a new one, but I’ve definitely had some nonsense answers recently.

          • glimse@lemmy.world
            31·
            12 days ago

            Right, that’s why I said “almost all”

            But these posts rarely have a date attached and the posters are rarely the ones to take the screenshot

        • Tippy@sh.itjust.works
          61·
          12 days ago

          No, this is still a common occurrence and pretty well documented. LLMs give a random answer based on a dataset and programmed weighting towards certain types of responses. This is why you can give the same prompt to the same LLM repeatedly and get different responses each time, or different responses by slightly modifying the prompt, even if both prompts say essentially the exact same thing. There is no comparison or “learning” happening from user input. It doesn’t think, rationalize, or memorize. This is just what LLMs are and how they work under the hood.

          Anthropomorphizing LLMs is a bad idea, and trusting the output without manual verification is foolish. The LLM does not know or care about misinformation, it is just a software that analyzes a dataset and outputs that information with programmed noise for variance, and sometimes extra user ass-kissing added for flair.

          • glimse@lemmy.world
            3·
            12 days ago

            I thought my first comment would make it clear that I’m very much not pro-AI so I’m not sure why I’m getting a lecture on anthropomorphizing it.

            But there’s still a lot wrong with your comment. You’re assuming that the data set never change and the parameters are never tweaked which is wildly untrue. Answers like this are not a common occurrence anymore because when a new one pops up, companies have a vested interest in updating the system instructions.

            I’m not saying the summaries are good now. Just that most of the outrageous answers have long since been fixed

            • Tippy@sh.itjust.works
              2·
              12 days ago

              It wasn’t a lecture, nor was it a personal attack to you. Your comment didn’t anthropomorphize LLMs, so I’m not sure how you interpreted that as me coming at you. The only place we disagree on this topic based on what we’ve each commented so far is that misinformation is inherently a byproduct of how LLMs currently function.

              You may not be as neutral on this topic as you claim if a response like mine felt offensive. It was a fairly predictable counter argument, and I’m not even the only one who made it in the replies.

              • glimse@lemmy.world
                3·
                12 days ago

                Well, you did reply to me. I didn’t realize you turned to the audience for the second paragraph

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    14·
    12 days ago

    A 70lb 1 year old, lol.

    The rest of this looks like how my kids thought growing up worked when they were really little. They expected to just keep growing, thought I was too, so by now I should be about 30 feet tall and yeah, 5,000 lb.