I mean, I've been saying this since LLMs were released.

We finally built a computer that is as unreliable and irrational as humans... which shouldn't be considered a good thing.

I'm under no illusion that LLMs are "thinking" in the same way that humans do, but god damn if they aren't almost exactly as erratic and irrational as the hairless apes whose thoughts they're trained on.

That "30% of population = dipshits" statistic keeps rearing its ugly head.

As someone who takes public transportation to work, SOME people SHOULD be forced to walk through the car wash.

The same 29% that keeps fascists in power around the world.

I'm not afraid to say that it took me a sec. My brain went "short distance. Walk or drive?" and skipped over the car wash bit at first. Then I laughed because I quickly realized the idiocy. :shrug:

Maybe 29% of people can't imagine owning their own car, so they assumed the would be going there to wash someone elses car

Half the issue is they're calling 10 in a row "good enough" to treat it as solved in the first place.

A sample size of 10 is nothing.

Frankly would like to see some error bars on the "human polling". How many people rapiddata is polling are just hitting the top or bottom answer?

Yes, but it's going to repeat that way FOREVER the same way the average person got slow walked hand in hand with a mobile operating system into corporate social media and app hell, taking the entire internet with them.

AI chatbots come with randomization enabled by default. Even if you completely disable it (as another reply mentions, "temperature" can be controlled), you can change a single letter and get a totally different and wrong result too. It's an unfixable "feature" of the chatbot system

Yeah, software is already not as deterministic as I'd like. I've encountered several bugs in my career where erroneous behavior would only show up if uninitialized memory happened to have "the wrong" values -- not zero values, and not the fences that the debugger might try to use. And, mocking or stubbing remote API calls is another way replicable behavior evades realization.

Having "AI" make a control flow decision is just insane. Especially even the most sophisticated LLMs are just not fit to task.

What we need is more proved-correct programs via some marriage of proof assistants and CompCert (or another verified compiler pipeline), not more vague specifications and ad-hoc implementations that happen to escape into production.

But, I'm very biased (I'm sure "AI" has "stolen" my IP, and "AI" is coming for my (programming) job(s).), and quite unimpressed with the "AI" models I've interacted with especially in areas I'm an expert in, but also in areas where I'm not an expert for am very interested and capable of doing any sort of critical verification.

It's also the case that people are mostly consistent.

Take a question like "how long would it take to drive from here to [nearby city]". You'd expect that someone's answer to that question would be pretty consistent day-to-day. If you asked someone else, you might get a different answer, but you'd also expect that answer to be pretty consistent. If you asked someone that same question a week later and got a very different answer, you'd strongly suspect that they were making the answer up on the spot but pretending to know so they didn't look stupid or something.

Part of what bothers me about LLMs is that they give that same sense of bullshitting answers while trying to cover that they don't know. You know that if you ask the question again, or phrase it slightly differently, you might get a completely different answer.

This is necessary for sounding like reasonable language and an inherent reason for "hallucinations". If it didn't have variation it would inevitably output the same answer to any input.

This is adjustable via temperature. It is set low on chatbots, causing the answers to be more random. It's set higher on code assistants to make things more deterministic.

This is why computers are expensive.

Dirtying the car on the way there?

The car you're planning on cleaning at the car wash?

Like, an AI not understanding the difference between walking and driving almost makes sense. This, though, seems like such a weird logical break that I feel like it shouldn't be possible.

It is an online poll. You also have to consider that some people don't care/want to be funny, and so either choose randomly, or choose the most nonsensical answer.

Have you seen the results of elections?

I saw that and hoped it is cause of the dead Internet theory. At least I hope so cause I'll be losing the last bit of faith in humanity if it isn't

Without reading the article, the title just says wash the car.

I could go for a walk and wash my car in my driveway.

Reading the article... That is exactly the question asked. It is a very ambiguous question.

*I do understand the intent of the question, but it could be phrased more clearly.

3 in 10 people get this wrong‽‽

Maybe they're picturing filling up a bucket and bringing it back to the car? Or dropping off keys to the car at the car wash?

At least some of that are people answering wrong on purpose to be funny, contrarian, or just to try to hurt the study.