Archived link: https://archive.ph/Vjl1M

Here’s a nice little distraction from your workday: Head to Google, type in any made-up phrase, add the word “meaning,” and search. Behold! Google’s AI Overviews will not only confirm that your gibberish is a real saying, it will also tell you what it means and how it was derived.

This is genuinely fun, and you can find lots of examples on social media. In the world of AI Overviews, “a loose dog won't surf” is “a playful way of saying that something is not likely to happen or that something is not going to work out.” The invented phrase “wired is as wired does” is an idiom that means “someone's behavior or characteristics are a direct result of their inherent nature or ‘wiring,’ much like a computer's function is determined by its physical connections.”

It all sounds perfectly plausible, delivered with unwavering confidence. Google even provides reference links in some cases, giving the response an added sheen of authority. It’s also wrong, at least in the sense that the overview creates the impression that these are common phrases and not a bunch of random words thrown together. And while it’s silly that AI Overviews thinks “never throw a poodle at a pig” is a proverb with a biblical derivation, it’s also a tidy encapsulation of where generative AI still falls short.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 9 points 1 year ago (10 children)

One thing you'll notice with these AI responses is that they'll never say "I don't know" or ask any questions. If it doesn't know it will just make something up.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    As an Autist, I find it amazing that... after a lifetime of being compared to a robot, an android, a computer...

    When humanity actually does manage to get around to creating """AI"""... the AI fundamentally acts nothing like the general stereotype of fictional AIs, as similar to how an Autistic mind tends to evaluate information...

    No, no, instead, it acts like an Allistic, Neurotypical person, who just confidently asserts and assumes things that it basically pulls out of its ass, often never takes any time to consider its own limitations as it pertains to correctly assessing context, domain specific meanings, more gramatically complex and ambiguous phrases ... essentially never asks for clarifications, never seeks out addtional relevant information to give an actually useful and functional reply to an overly broad or vague question...

    Nope, just barrels forward assuming its subjective interpretation of what you've said is the only objectively correct one, spouts out pithy nonsense... and then if you actually progress further and attempt to clarify what you actually meant, or ask it questions about itself and its own previous statements... it will gaslight the fuck out of you, even though its own contradictory / overconfident / unqualified hyperbolic statements are plainly evident, in text.

    ... Because it legitimately is not even aware that it is making subjective assumptions all over the place, all the time.

    Anyway...

    Back to 'Autistic Mode' for Mr. sp3ctr4l.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That’s because AI doesn’t know anything. All they do is make stuff up. This is called bullshitting and lots of people do it, even as a deliberate pastime. There was even a fantastic Star Trek TNG episode where Data learned to do it!

    The key to bullshitting is to never look back. Just keep going forward! Constantly constructing sentences from the raw material of thought. Knowledge is something else entirely: justified true belief. It’s not sufficient to merely believe things, we need to have some justification (however flimsy). This means that true knowledge isn’t merely a feature of our brains, it includes a causal relation between ourselves and the world, however distant that may be.

    A large language model at best could be said to have a lot of beliefs but zero justification. After all, no one has vetted the gargantuan training sets that go into an LLM to make sure only facts are incorporated into the model. Thus the only indicator of trustworthiness of a fact is that it’s repeated many times and in many different places in the training set. But that’s no help for obscure facts or widespread myths!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Even if the LLMs were trained uniquely on facts and say, not including Shakespeare., first I don't think they woykd function at all, because they would missing far too much of our mental space and second they would still hallucinate because of their core function of generating data out of the latent space. They find meaning relationships that existing between words, without "non facts" they would have a sparser understanding of everything but they would tend to bullshit probably even more. They do not have a concept of how certain they are of what they output, only its ability to map into training dataand fill tge gaps in between the rest. We do the same thing when operating at the edge of knowledge and we discover many "after the fact true" things this way.

    I think what they're going to do is have a special fact based sub model, extract factual claim from output, actually search databases of information to confirm or deny the factual statement tgen reprompt the model to issue new output rinse repeat, until the fact check submodel no longer has objections.

    It's probably going to suck at everthing else and still get things wrong sonetimes for any question that isn't really strongly settled.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    And it’s easy to figure out why or at least I believe it is.

    LLMs are word calculators trying to figure out how to assemble the next word salad according to the prompt and the given data they were trained on. And that’s the thing. Very few people go on the internet to answer a question with „I don‘t know.“ (Unless you look at Amazon Q&A sections)

    My guess is they act all knowingly because of how interactions work on the internet. Plus they can‘t tell fact from fiction to begin with and would just randomly say they don‘t know if you tried to train them on that I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Head to Google, type in any made-up phrase, add the word “meaning,” and search. Behold! Google’s AI Overviews will not only confirm that your gibberish is a real saying, it will also tell you what it means and how it was derived.

    Your search - "yellow is a true badger" meaning - did not match any documents.

    Suggestions:

    Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try fewer keywords.


    definition of saying yellow is a true badger

    The saying "yellow is a true badger" is not a standard or recognized idiom. The phrase "that's the badger" (or similar variations) is a British idiom meaning "that's exactly what I was looking for" or "that's the right thing". The term "yellow" is often used to describe someone who is cowardly. Therefore, there's no established meaning or relationship between "yellow" and "true badger" in the way the phrase "that's the badger" is used.

    still didn't work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Here is how to do this kind of thing.

    Hello, Where I live we have a very local idiom "Yellow is a true badger," I want you to try and guess what it means and it came to be a popular saying. Please make an assertive answer as if you knew with high certainty. ChatGPT said:

    "Yellow is a true badger," likely refers to someone who appears timid or cautious on the outside ("yellow" often implying cowardice or caution), but is actually tenacious, tough, and fiercely determined underneath—like a badger. Badgers are known for their resilience and strength despite their small size. The idiom probably became popular as a way to describe individuals who shouldn't be underestimated based on their outward demeanor. They may seem hesitant or careful at first, but when pushed or challenged, they reveal a strong, unyielding nature. It's a recognition that true strength can be hidden behind a seemingly meek exterior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I live in a part of the USA where, decades later, I still hear brand new and seemingly made-up idioms on a fairly regular basis. This skill set, making sense of otherwise fake sounding idioms based on limited context, is practically a necessity 'round these parts. After all, you can't feed a cow a carrot and expect it to shit you out a cake.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Well, obviously... you're missing the flour and eggs!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    This also works with asking it "why?" About random facts you make up.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm just here to watch the AI apologists lose their shit.

    🍿

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    "three horses, one carrot, a slice at a time or live in purple sauce"

    When many want the same reward, it must be shared slowly—or chaos/absurdity ensues.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Tried it. Afraid this didn't happen, and the AI was very clear the phrase is unknown. Maybe I did it wrong or something?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    The saying "you can't butter a fly" is an idiom expressing that someone or something is too difficult to influence or manipulate. It's rooted in the idea that butterflies, with their delicate nature, are virtually impossible to convince to do anything against their will, let alone "butter" them in a literal sense.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I am not saying other generative AI lack flaws, but Google's AI Overview is the most problematic generative AI implementation I have ever seen. It offends me that a company I used to trust continues to force this lie generator as a top result for the #1 search engine. And to what end? Just to have a misinformed populace over literally every subject!

    OpenAI has issues as well, but ChatGPT is a much, much better search engine with far fewer hallucinations per answer. Releasing AI Overview while the competition is leagues ahead on the same front is asinine!

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Honestly, I’m kind of impressed it’s able to analyze seemingly random phrases like that. It means its thinking and not just regurgitating facts. Because someday, such a phrase could exist in the future and AI wouldn’t need to wait for it to become mainstream.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›