You know how Google’s new feature called AI Overviews is prone to spitting out wildly incorrect answers to search queries? In one instance, AI Overviews told a user to use glue on pizza to make sure the cheese won’t slide off (pssst…please don’t do this.)

Well, according to an interview at The Vergewith Google CEO Sundar Pichai published earlier this week, just before criticism of the outputs really took off, these “hallucinations” are an “inherent feature” of  AI large language models (LLM), which is what drives AI Overviews, and this feature “is still an unsolved problem.”

  • TacticsConsort@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    In the interest of transparency, I don’t know if this guy is telling the truth, but it feels very plausible.

  • Mad_Punda.de@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    these hallucinations are an “inherent feature” of  AI large language models (LLM), which is what drives AI Overviews, and this feature "is still an unsolved problem”.

    Then what made you think it’s a good idea to include that in your product now?!

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    They keep saying it’s impossible, when the truth is it’s just expensive.

    That’s why they wont do it.

    You could only train AI with good sources (scientific literature, not social media) and then pay experts to talk with the AI for long periods of time, giving feedback directly to the AI.

    Essentially, if you want a smart AI you need to send it to college, not drop it off at the mall unsupervised for 22 years and hope for the best when you pick it back up.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      No he’s right that it’s unsolved. Humans aren’t great at reliably knowing truth from fiction too. If you’ve ever been in a highly active comment section you’ll notice certain “hallucinations” developing, usually because someone came along and sounded confident and everyone just believed them.

      We don’t even know how to get full people to do this, so how does a fancy markov chain do it? It can’t. I don’t think you solve this problem without AGI, and that’s something AI evangelists don’t want to think about because then the conversation changes significantly. They’re in this for the hype bubble, not the ethical implications.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        We do know. It’s called critical thinking education. This is why we send people to college. Of course there are highly educated morons, but we are edging bets. This is why the dismantling or coopting of education is the first thing every single authoritarian does. It makes it easier to manipulate masses.

    • Zarxrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m addition to the other comment, I’ll add that just because you train the AI on good and correct sources of information, it still doesn’t necessarily mean that it will give you a correct answer all the time. It’s more likely, but not ensured.

      • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes, thank you! I think this should be written in capitals somewhere so that people could understand it quicker. The answers are not wrong or right on purpose. LLMs don’t have any way of distinguishing between the two.

    • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The truth is, this is the perfect type of a comment that makes an LLM hallucinate. Sounds right, very confident, but completely full of bullshit. You can’t just throw money on every problem and get it solved fast. This is an inheret flaw that can only be solved by something else than a LLM and prompt voodoo.

      They will always spout nonsense. No way around it, for now. A probabilistic neural network has zero, will always have zero, and cannot have anything but zero concept of fact - only stastisically probable result for a given prompt.

      It’s a politician.

    • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I let you in on a secret: scientific literature has its fair share of bullshit too. The issue is, it is much harder to figure out its bullshit. Unless its the most blatant horseshit you’ve scientifically ever seen. So while it absolutely makes sense to say, let’s just train these on good sources, there is no source that is just that. Of course it is still better to do it like that than as they do it now.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The issue is, it is much harder to figure out its bullshit.

        Google AI suggested you put glue on your pizza because a troll said it on Reddit once…

        Not all scientific literature is perfect. Which is one of the many factors that will stay make my plan expensive and time consuming.

        You can’t throw a toddler in a library and expect them to come out knowing everything in all the books.

        AI needs that guided teaching too.

  • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Nothing is going to change until people die because of this shit.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’ve been around for a while and shit has changed significantly under a relatively long lived set of dudes.

  • Baggie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    God I’m fucking sick of this loss leading speculative investment bullshit. It’s hit some bizarre zenith that has infected everybody in the tech world, but nobody has any actual intention of being practical in the making of money, or the functionality of the product. I feel like we should just can the whole damned thing and start again.

    • systemglitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Huh. That made me stop and realize how long I’ve been around. Wikipedia still feels like a new addition to society to me, even though I’ve been using it for around 20 years now.

      And what you said, is something I’ve cautioned my daughter about, and first said that to her about ten years ago.

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Since when has feeding us misinformation been a problem for capitalist parasites like Pichai?

    Misinformation is literally the first line of defense for them.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      But this is not misinformation, it is uncontrolled nonsense. It directly devalues their offering of being able to provide you with an accurate answer to something you look for. And if their overall offering becomes less valuable, so does their ability to steer you using their results.

      So while the incorrect nature is not a problem in itself for them, (as you see from his answer)… the degradation of their ability to influence results is.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        But this is not misinformation, it is uncontrolled nonsense.

        The strategy is to get you to keep feeding Google new prompts in order to feed you more adds.

        The AI response is just a gimmick. It gives Google something to tell their investors, when they get asked “What are you doing with AI right now? We hear that’s big.”

        But the real money is getting unique user interactions for the purpose of serving up more ad content. In that model, bad answers are actually better than no answers, because they force the end use to keep refining the query and searching through the site backlog.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I don’t believe they will retain user interactions if the reason for the user interactions dissapears. The value of Google is they provide accurate search results.

          I can understand some users just want to be spoonfed an answer. But that’s not what most people expect from a search engine.

          I want google to use actual AI to filter out all the nonsense sites that turn a Reddit post into an article of 500 words using an LLM without any actual value. That should be googles proposition.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            The value of Google is they provide accurate search results.

            They offer the most accurate results of search engines you’re familiar with. But in a shrinking field with degrading quality, that’s a low bar and sinking quick.

            I want google to use actual AI to filter out all the nonsense sites

            So did the last head of Google search, until the new CEO fired him.

        • fishos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          If you don’t know the answer is bad, which confident idiots spouting off on reddit and being upvoted into infinity has proven is common, then you won’t refine your search. You’ll just accept the bad answer and move on.

          Your logic doesn’t follow. If someone doesn’t know the answer and are searching for it, they likely won’t be able to tell if the answer is correct. We literally already have that problem with misinformation. And what sounds more confident than an AI?

  • Paradox@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Replace the CEO with an AI. They’re both good at lying and telling people what they want to hear, until they get caught

  • retrospectology@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is what happens every time society goes along with tech bro hype. They just run directly into a wall. They are the embodiment of “Didn’t stop to think if they should” and it’s going to cause a lot of problems for humanity.