You must log in or register to comment.
I fucking knew this story was bullshit, and the scientist emailing a random plebe at Google (like some low level employee would know or be allowed to be honest about AI shitfuckery) all shocked was a joke, too. Pretty disappointed with a scientist feeding into this horseshit.
When it first ran, I posited that if they had emailed their documentation to someone with a Gmail address, it might have been up for grabs for sucking down the maw of Google’s AI monstrosities.
Finally, even when it comes to the “right” answer there is no way to know if it hallucinated it’s way to such an answer! Which makes it getting the “right” answer effectively pointless.
The AI guys are really playing with the exact same cheat every time, aren’t they? Thanks to pivot-to-ai for continuing to shine a light on this… I hope the wider press eventually learns about it, too.
aren’t so-called AIs really just a computer version of the infinite monkey/ typewriter thought experiment?
It’s like that but if they were guided towards answers that sound reasonably likely
No, the typewriters are supposed to be random, this is guided based on previous work, so a whole space of output becomes extremely unlikely (so without looking at math for it, those spaces would show up very rarely if you then ran the infinite monkey experiment infinite times).
It’s infinite monkeys but every time they output coherent English you give them bananas to incentivise them towards that