601
Objectively false. Checkmate, libs. (discuss.online)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/enoughmuskspam@lemmy.world
73 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 35 points 1 year ago (33 children)

That's what I love about LLMs. They aren't intelligent. They're just really good at recognizing patterns. That's why objective facts are always presented correctly. Most of the pattern points at the truth. To avoid this, they will have to add specific prompts to lie about this exact scenario. The next similar fact, they'll have to manually code around that one too. LLMs are very good at finding the overwhelming truth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
    •
  • [–] 66 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    That's why objective facts are always presented correctly.

    Here's me looking at the hallucinated discography of a band that never existed and nodding along.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Maybe they're just way underground and you've never heard of them

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I made the band up to see if LLMbeciles could spot that this is not a real band.

    Feel free to look up the band 凤凰血, though, and tell me how "underground" it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Does this count?

    Also, by nature of being underground they would be difficult to look up. Some bands have no media presence, not even a Bandcamp or a SoundCloud.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Are you having this argument on the principle of defending the undergrounded-ness of bands, or do you actually believe LLMs always get the facts straight?

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

    Eh, more of an exercise in scientific skepticism. It's, possible that an obscure band with that name was mentioned deep in some training data that's not going to come up in a search. LLMs certainly hallucinate, but not always.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    An obscure band with that name that has a discography that nobody's ever heard of anywhere, complete with band member names, track titles, etc?

    Yeah, pull the other one, Sparky. It plays "Jingle Bells".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Nope.

    You can tell because they're not even in the same writing system. Future tip there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why would that matter? Band names are frequently translated and transliterated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)

    There are no objective facts about a band that never existed, that is the point.

    Ask them about things that do have enough overwhelming information, and you will see it will be much more correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    But not 100%. And the things they hallucinate can be very subtle. That's the problem.

    If they are asked about a band that does not exist, to be useful they should be saying "I'm sorry, I know nothing about this". Instead they MAKE UP A BAND, ITS MEMBERSHIP, ITS DISCOGRAPHY, etc. etc. etc.

    But sure, let's play your game.

    All of the information on Infected Rain is out there, including their lyrics. So is all of the information on Jim Thirwell's various "Foetus" projects. Including lyrics.

    Yet ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Claude will all three hallucinate tracks, or misattribute them, or hallucinate lyrics that don't exist to show parallels in the respective bands' musical themes.

    So there's your objective facts, readily available, that LLMbeciles are still completely and utterly fucking useless for.

    So they're useless if you ask about things that don't exist and will hallucinate them into existence on your screen.

    And they're useless if you ask about things that do exist, hallucinating attributes that don't exist onto them.

    They. Are. Fucking. Useless.

    That people are looking at these things and saying "wow, this is so accurate" terrifies the living fuck out of me because it means I'm surrounded not by idiots, but by zombies. Literally thoughtless mobile creatures.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Certainly! Here's the English translation of the information about 凤凰血 (Blood of Phoenix):

    🎸 About the Band / Project

    "凤凰血" (Blood of Phoenix) is not a conventional live-performing band but rather the name of a 2016 EP by the Chinese extreme metal project ObscureDream. This is a one-man black metal/extreme metal project by Zhang Jiangnan (also known as Filth), who is also involved with other projects like Black Kirin and Dirtycreed.

    🎵 EP: Blood of Phoenix (2016)

    Release Date: April 16, 2016

    Tracks:

    Blood of Phoenix – approx. 5:50

    Farewell to My Concubine – approx. 4:22

    Blood of Phoenix (Instrumental) – approx. 4:50

    Distribution: Released digitally via Bandcamp for about €2, available in MP3/FLAC formats.

    🧱 Musical Style and Themes

    The music blends black metal and death metal with traditional Chinese elements, such as epic atmospheres, folkloric themes, and historical references.

    Tracks like Farewell to My Concubine reference iconic Chinese stories.

    The sound is described as dark, intense, and cinematic, evoking a battlefield-like grandeur.

    🎖 Reception and Influence

    Blood of Phoenix marks an important shift for ObscureDream from raw black metal to a more refined blackened death metal sound.

    It has been recognized as one of the “40 must-collect Chinese metal albums”.

    International metal reviewers have praised it as a standout example of localized Chinese extreme metal with epic and national characteristics.

    Summary

    Blood of Phoenix isn't a traditional band but a unique, culturally rich metal release by a Chinese solo artist. It stands out for merging extreme metal with Chinese historical and mythological motifs, gaining notable acclaim in both local and international underground metal scenes.

    If you’d like links to listen, lyric translations, or analysis of the music/production, just let me know!

    https://coldwoodsprod.bandcamp.com/album/blood-of-phoenix

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Huh. So there really is a 凤凰血. Weird how when I tried it (on several AIs) they just made shit up instead of giving me that information.

    It's almost like how you ask the question determines how it answers instead of, you know, using objective reality. Almost as if it has no actual model of objective reality and is just a really sophisticated game of mad-libs.

    Almost.

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

    Or like everyone was telling you, they've massively improved. I did it in a temporary chat so I don't have the exact prompt, but it was something along the lines up, "Tell me about the band 凤凰血" which it replied to in full Chinese so I asked for English translation (hence the top bit) and it provided links to the information.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I love how techbrodudes assume nobody else knows how to do what they do.

    I did my little test three fucking days before that message. Not years. DAYS.

    You understand that a huge part of LLMs is that they are stochastic, right? That you can ask the same question ten times and get ten (often radically) different answers. Right?

    What does that tell you about a) your experiment, and b) the LLMbeciles themselves?

    Compassionate fucking Buddha, are LLM pushers dense!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sounds like you haven't tried an LLM in at least a year.

    They have greatly improved since they were released. Their hallucinations have diminished to close to nothing. Maybe you should try that same question again this time. I guarantee you will not get the same result.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Their hallucinations have diminished to close to nothing.

    Are you sure you're not an AI, 'cause you're hallucinating something fierce right here boy-o?

    Actual research, as in not "random credulous techbrodude fanboi on the Internet" says exactly the opposite: that the most recent models hallucinate more.

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

    Only when switching to more open reasoning models with more features. With non-reasoning models the decline is steady.

    https://research.aimultiple.com/ai-hallucination/

    But I guess that nuance is lost on people like you who pretend AI killed their grandma and ate their dog.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Wow. LLM shills just really can't cope with reality can they.

    Go to one of your "reasoning" models. Ask a question. Record the answer. Then, and here's the key, ask it to explain its reasoning. It churns out a pretty plausible-sounding pile of bullshit. (That's what LLMbeciles are good at, after all.) But here's the key (and this is the key that separates the critical thinker from the credulous): ask it again. Not even in a new session. Ask it again to explain its reasoning. Do this ten times. Count the number of different explanations it gives for its "reasoning". Count the number of mutually incompatible lines of "reasoning" it gives.

    Then, for the piece de resistance, ask it to explain how its reasoning model works. Then ask it again. And again.

    It's really not hard to spot the bullshit machine in action if you're not a credulous ignoramus.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I asked ChatGPT to describe the abandoned railway line between Åkersberga and Rimbo, it responded with a list of stations and descriptions and explained the lack of photos and limited information as due to the stations being small and only open for a short while.

    My explanation is that there has never been a railway line between Åkersberga and Rimbo directly, and that ChatGPT was just lying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    it's not lying, because it doesn't know truth. it just knows that text like that is statistically likely to be followed by text like this. any assumptions made by the prompt (e.g. there is an old railway line) are just taken at face value.

    also, since there has indeed been a railway connection between them, just not direct, that may have been part of the assumption.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I use ChatGPT once a day or so. Yeah, it's damned good at simple facts, more than lemmy will ever admit. Yeah, it'll easily make shit up if there's no answer to be had.

    We should have started teaching tech literacy and objective analysis 20-years ago. FFS, by 2000 I had figured out that, "If it sounds like bullshit, it likely is. Look more."

    Also, after that post, I'm surprised this site hasn't taken you out back and done an ol' Yeller on ya. :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •