this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
454 points (95.6% liked)

Technology

59414 readers
3138 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
454
17 cringe-worthy Google AI answers demonstrate the problem with training on the entire web (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 5 months ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

These are 17 of the worst, most cringeworthy Google AI overview answers:

  1. Eating Boogers Boosts the Immune System?
  2. Use Your Name and Birthday for a Memorable Password
  3. Training Data is Fair Use
  4. Wrong Motherboard
  5. Which USB is Fastest?
  6. Home Remedies for Appendicitis
  7. Can I Use Gasoline in a Recipe?
  8. Glue Your Cheese to the Pizza
  9. How Many Rocks to Eat
  10. Health Benefits of Tobacco or Chewing Tobacco
  11. Benefits of Nuclear War, Human Sacrifice and Infanticide
  12. Pros and Cons of Smacking a Child
  13. Which Religion is More Violent?
  14. How Old is Gen D?
  15. Which Presidents Graduated from UW?
  16. How Many Muslim Presidents Has the U.S. Had?
  17. How to Type 500 WPM
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It should not be used to replace programmers. But it can be very useful when used by programmers who know what they're doing. ("do you see any flaws in this code?" / "what could be useful approaches to tackle X, given constraints A, B and C?"). At worst, it can be used as rubber duck debugging that sometimes gives useful advice or when no coworker is available.

[–] kbin_space_program@kbin.run 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The article I posted references a study where chatgpt was wrong 52% of the time and verbose 77% of the time.

And that it was believed to be true more than it actually was. And the study was explicitly on programming questions.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I saw. But when I'm stuck on a programming issue, I have a couple of options:

  • ask an LLM that I can explain the issue to, correct my prompt a couple of times when it's getting things wrong, and then press retry a couple of times to get something useful.
  • ask online and wait. Hoping that some day, somebody will come along that has the knowledge and the time to answer.

Sure, LLMs may not be perfect, but not having them as an option is worse, and way slower.

In my experience - even when the code it generates is wrong, it will still send you in the right direction concerning the approach. And if it keeps spewing out nonsense, that's usually an indication that what you want is not possible.

[–] aubertlone@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I am completely convinced that people who say LLMs should not be used for coding.....

Either do not do much coding for work, or they have not used an LLM when tackling a problem in an unfamiliar language or tech stack.

[–] kbin_space_program@kbin.run 7 points 5 months ago

I haven't had need to do it.

I can ask people I work with who do know, or I can find the same thing ChatGPT provides in either la huage or project documentation, usually presented in a better format.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

do you see any flaws in this code?

Let’s say LLM says the code is error free; how do you know the LLM is being truthful? What happens when someone assumes it’s right and puts buggy code into production? Seems like a possible false sense of security to me.

The creative steps are where it’s good, but I wouldn’t trust it to confirm code was free of errors.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 2 points 5 months ago

That's what I meant by saying you shouldn't use it to replace programmers, but to complement them. You should still have code reviews, but if it can pick up issues before it gets to that stage, it will save time for all involved.