295
I Asked AI to Count My Carbs 27,000 Times. It Couldn’t Give Me the Same Answer Twice.
(www.diabettech.com)
this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
295 points (94.3% liked)
Technology
85245 readers
4948 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OK I wonder if there's something wrong with the photo.
The photo:
WTF!!??
That's like estimating the carbs in 2 slices of standard sandwich bread! Of course not all bread has the same amount of sugar, but a reasonable range based on an average should be a dead easy answer.
I thought the headline sounded crazy, but try to read the article, and it actually becomes worse. I have said it many times before, these AI chatbots should not be legal, they put lives at risk.
They put lives at risk the same way every single product at your local home improvement store does. When you misuse a tool for a purpose it wasn't intended and isn't good at, you're going to get bad results.
This is an issue for the educational system, not the legal system.
What if the packaging on every tool at home depot grossly misrepresented its capabilities and/or purpose?
This chainsaw cures cancer? Hot damn somebody call RFK!
Concrete mix goes great with pancakes, etc.
Does OpenAI claim ChatGPT is fit for those purposes? No.
The concrete itself will happily mix into your pancakes.
I think the whole point of this discussion is that the various peddlers of AI in fact do make wild claims about their capability.
My observation is that largely it's the downstream AI consumers who repackage it irresponsibly. That said, I don't hang on the words of Sam Altman and it's certain they are pushing the idea that AI is more capable than it is, but mostly what I see is them saying they built this thing and it does neat stuff and it can probably do neat stuff for you, use your imagination.
I believe a lot of the folks developing these tools would be horrified at the irresponsible ways vendors and end users are using it.
Sam Altman is the face of OpenAI. He is responsible for misrepresenting the product he sells. If you're going to sling blame around, then you had better observe the words of Sam Altman.
This sick man is taken seriously in mainstream media and politics, and it's no exaggeration to say he has blood on his hands.
That's obviously bullshit but he's not telling users they can develop time travel or something. That's the distinction I would draw. He's selling investment. That's not where the end users that are misusing ChatGPT are at.
It's the job of the company and especially the face and CEO of the company to sell the product. Compared to Sam Altman's promises, the use in this post is practically modest.
If you think this isn't the case, maybe you can point to some ChatGPT marketing that would make it clear what correct, and especially incorrect usage would look like?
They don't. They say we made this thing, see what you can do with it. They also put disclaimers on ChatGPT to say not to rely on it to be correct.
One can infer from that, that any use for which you are relying on accuracy is incorrect use. Which is why it's critical to have any output filtered through a domain-capable human.
"The thing that I think will be most impactful on that five to ten year timeframe is AI will actually discover new science." - Sam Altman
This is what the face of OpenAI explicitly says their product is for. Do you have anything more concrete? Or am I just to buy into this infinite good faith and assume that anything dumb ~~Trump~~ Sammy says is just hyperbole?
He's not selling anything specific and not to end users. You're talking about something completely different. The way Sam and investors and corporate customers talk about AI is pretty misleading, but it's not misleading users. No one looks at AI replacing CSRs and inventing new sciences, whatever the fuck that means, and jumps to it can unerringly diagnose a rash. And even if they did, the bot explicitly says not to trust it.
If some dirt farmer asks it how to avoid losing his family farm in a drought and takes ChatGPT's advice to plant chocolate chips and loses the farm anyway, I suggest that's a user error.
We might as well be discussing whether the tobacco industry has mislead customers because they have a little disclaimer on their cartons.
Mainstream media publishes Sammy's statements uncritically. ChatGPT releases ads. It's extremely clear he is misleading the general public, his users. I don't know why you're in denial over this.