AI chatbots unable to accurately summarise news, BBC finds
-
-
Lemmy is understandably sympathetic to self-hosted LLMs, but I get chewed out or even banned literally anywhere else.
In this fandom I'm in, there used to be enthusiasm for a "community enhancement" of a show since the official release looks terrible. Years later, I don't even mention the word "AI," just the idea of restoration (now that we have the tools to do it), and I get bombed and threadlocked.
-
-
The problem is that the "train of the thought" is also hallucinations. It might make the model better with more compute but it's diminishing rewards.
Rpg can use the llms because they're not critical. If the llm spews out nonsense you don't like, you just ask to redo, because it's all subjective.
-
For local LLMs, this is an issue because it breaks your prompt cache and slows things down, without a specific tiny model to "categorize" text... which no one has really worked on.
I don't think the corporate APIs or UIs even do this.
You are not wrong, but it's just not done for some reason.
-
Gemini Flash Thinking from earlier this year was very good for its speed/price, but it regressed a ton.
Gemini 1.5 is literally better than the new 2.0 in some of my tests, especially long-context ones.
-
-
-
Or at least as an assistant on a field your an expert in. Love using it for boilerplate at work (tech).
-
-
Bing/chatgpt is just as bad. It loves to tell you it's doing something and then just ignores you completely.
-
It is stated as 51% problematic, so maybe your coin flip was successful this time.
-
Whoops, yeah, should have linked the blog.
I didn't want to link the individual models because I'm not sure hybrid or pure transformers is better?
-
-
Fuckin news!
-
How could I blindly trust anything in this context?
-
-
You can say Space Needle. We get it.
-
Turns out, spitting out words when you don't know what anything means or what "means" means is bad, mmmmkay.
It got journalists who were relevant experts in the subject of the article to rate the quality of answers from the AI assistants.
It found 51% of all AI answers to questions about the news were judged to have significant issues of some form.
Additionally, 19% of AI answers which cited BBC content introduced factual errors, such as incorrect factual statements, numbers and dates.
Introduced factual errors
Yeah that's . . . that's bad. As in, not good. As in - it will never be good. With a lot of work and grinding it might be "okay enough" for some tasks some day. That'll be another 200 Billion please.
-
