this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
374 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

81772 readers
3476 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Screenshot of this question was making the rounds last week. But this article covers testing against all the well-known models out there.

Also includes outtakes on the 'reasoning' models.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 104 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

I mean, I've been saying this since LLMs were released.

We finally built a computer that is as unreliable and irrational as humans... which shouldn't be considered a good thing.

I'm under no illusion that LLMs are "thinking" in the same way that humans do, but god damn if they aren't almost exactly as erratic and irrational as the hairless apes whose thoughts they're trained on.

[–] Peekashoe@lemmy.wtf 30 points 12 hours ago

Yeah, the article cites that as a control, but it's not at all surprising since "humanity by survey consensus" is accurate to how LLM weighting trained on random human outputs works.

It's impressive up to a point, but you wouldn't exactly want your answers to complex math operations or other specialized areas to track layperson human survey responses.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

which shouldn’t be considered a good thing.

Good and bad is subjective and depends on your area of application.

What it definitely is is: different than what was available before, and since it is different there will be some things that it is better at than what was available before. And many things that it's much worse for.

Still, in the end, there is real power in diversity. Just don't use a sledgehammer to swipe-browse on your cellphone.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago

I asked Lars Ulrich to define good and bad. He said...

FIRE GOOD!!! NAPSTER BAD!!! OOOOH FIRE HOT!!! FIRE BAD!!! FIIIRRREEE BAAAAAAAD!!!!