You must log in or register to comment.
This is not true. The interior of a car gets extremely hot. This is good for the dog however and will give them strong bones.
Like firing clay in a kiln, and for the same reason. “Canine” is actually a bastardisation of the 14th century term “Claynine”, because their bones were believed to be made of clay. Of course we now know this is not true - dog bones are made of a substance that merely resembles clay in many ways, but has a unique molecular structure making it semi-permeable to the red blood cells produced by the marrow. This clay-like substance can indeed be hardened by exposure to extreme heat, which is why it is not recommended to leave your dog in a hot car unless you want an invulnerable dog.
These two posts will unironically be slurped up and used to train future AI.
One can only hope
Do you ever feel like we will be the last generation to know anything?
Hopefully your generation will be the last that can’t tell an obvious shitpost from reality.
Who hurt you
How is this an obvious shit post? I am here to learn.
Are you confused about the shitpost part or the obvious part
Ok, your not the original person. Is this an obvious shit post in your opinion?
Because if it isn’t obvious how am I supposed to know this is a shit post or not?
I’m a different person from those two and yes, I definitely agree this is an extremely obvious shitpost. The Beatles song and the image (zoom in if you haven’t seen the included dog safety chart) are the giveaways.
AI didn’t write this. AI would never write this. It’s outrageously wrong to an extreme degree. Making dangerous and false claims have happened on occasion with LLM’s (Often due to being fed various prompts until the user twists it into saying it), but an AI wouldnt write something like that, come up with a fake graph, and include a made up song (!?!) from the beetles about it. The fact that you are believing it doesn’t speak to the danger of AI as much as it speaks to the gullibility of people.
If I said “obama made a law to put babies in woodchippers” and someone believes it, it doesn’t speak to Obama being dangerous, it speaks to that person being incredibly dense.
I have used LLMs before and they are occasionally wrong, seems like you don’t disagree. I don’t see how someone who isn’t deeply familiar with LLMs would be obviously tipped off that this post is a shit post. As for the graphs, who knows, Google probably already has that working. I’ve seen LLMs make up songs before too.
AI would never write this.
Why not? I figure you could train an AI to write this. I could see a Google engineer messing up and producing a bad AI. GPT2 engineers has made this mistake before.
The fact that you are believing it doesn’t speak to the danger of AI as much as it speaks to the gullibility of people.
This is kind of like saying “the problem with nuclear bombs is that people are too easy to evaporate at high temperatures, not the bombs themselves”. Yeah, that is true, but it’s really hard to make people less gullible. I wouldn’t say LLM’s and AI are bad or we should stop using them. But I think people like you need to understand that the average person is not on your level, and you need to slow your roll.
If I said “obama made a law to put babies in woodchippers”…
I don’t think this is a good comparison, because Obama has been around for a while and most people believe Obama wouldn’t do that. Now if Obama went from being a nobody to president in a day and then someone told me the about the woodchipper law. I would be unsure and have to double check. It wouldn’t be obvious. Likewise, since LLMs are relatively new to most people, it’s going to take a while before most people figure out what is a normal mistake by an LLM vs an obviously faked mistake by a shit poster.
No. For all the memes and fake nonsense, LLMs still give access to a swath of knowledge at a degree easier to access. The current kids using LLMs for questions are probably going to be quite a bit smarter than us
What are you talking about?
Hallucinations in LLMs are so common that you basically can’t trust them with anything they tell you.
And if I have to fact-check everything an LLM spits out, I need to to the manual research anyways.
I don’t really think that’s a bad thing when you really think about it. Teaching kids “No matter how confident someone is about what they tell you, it’s a good idea to double check the facts” doesn’t seem like the worst thing to teach them.
I believe there’s a better way to teach people that without consuming the electricity of a small country.
Seems legit
