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.”

  • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 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
      37
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 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.

    • callouscomic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      “Most published journal articles are horseshit, so I guess we should be okay with this too.”

      • Turun@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        No, it’s simply contradicting the claim that it is possible.

        We literally don’t know how to fix it. We can put on bandaids, like training on “better” data and fine-tune it to say “I don’t know” half the time. But the fundamental problem is simply not solved yet.