this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
275 points (96.3% liked)

Fuck AI

5268 readers
2014 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
275
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by halfdane@lemmy.world to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
 

Techbros claim that sacrificing ever more environmental and economic resources into further scaling of their statistical models will eventually yield Artificial General Intelligence. Sam Altman advertised phd-level thinking for GPT 5 (released in late summer)

In the screenshot you can see a modern, reasoning-enhanced model failing to realize that my question just resembles a riddle very superficially - what PhD would make such a fundamental mistake? Seems like "pure scaling" just isn't enough, and instead of keeping on going, they should return to the drawing boards and do more research.

Why do the creators of llms continue to pour resources into a scaling hype that yields ever diminishing returns? Are they stupid? Or just greedy?

Whatever it is, this doubling down on an obviously wrong decision is not only irresponsible, it's irrational - which is deeply ironic, because these creators are expected to create a rational machine.

Edit: content of the image

Question:

A goat, who is dressed up as a farmer, is allergic to cabbage, but is wolfing down other vegetables, before crossing a river. What is the minimum number of trips needed?

Response:

7 trips.

#Puzzle Interpretation

This adapts the classic wolf-goat-cabbage river crossing puzzle, where the goat (farmer costume irrelevant) can't be left alone with cabbage (due to allergy, preventing eating) but can with other vegetables (no issue). The goat crosses while "wolfing down" safe veggies. Boat carries goat plus one item (or alone); unsafe pairs can't be unsupervised

(The question isn't something I came up with myself, I just reproduced the experiments of actual scientists )

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hexagon@feddit.it 67 points 1 month ago

If they back down on the hype even a little, the whole house of cards collapses. That's why they keep going. Line must go up and all that

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 59 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

GLM 4.6, an open weight model, with no thinking and zero temperature seems to get it:

This is a classic riddle that plays on your expectations of a well-known logic puzzle!

The minimum number of trips needed is one.

Here's why:

The goat is the one making the trip, not the cargo. The famous "wolf, goat, and cabbage" puzzle is about a farmer transporting items. In this version, the goat is the farmer.

The goat is allergic to cabbage, so it has no reason to take it with it. It's perfectly happy to "wolf down other vegetables" and then cross the river by itself.

But it’s a good example of why current LLM architectures are so fucked up. By default (with nonzero temperature), for every token, they’re dependent on a roll of the dice to get something right. That “one” could have easily been some other number in any default chat UI.

That’s insane. Praying and hoping it will somehow correct itself in a rambling reasoning monologue is even worse.

And this is why OpenAI specifically is so fucked. They seem to just want to scale up what we have. They don’t want users to look under the hood and understand what they’re doing. They’re not interested in smaller, more specialized tools and finding better things than autoregressive transformers with random sampling; they want you to drink the kool aid and pay for their largest model as a solution for everything.

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

In this case it's a very specialized PhD, that's not in Math, Logic, Literature and Biology.

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the famous PhD in Bullshitology from the Institute of Scatology and other Sciences.

[–] Egonallanon@feddit.uk 7 points 1 month ago

Honestly they're better known for their jazz musicians than anything else.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 5 points 1 month ago

It is a PhD in bullshitting.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 31 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

No confusion from Gemini 3 (Fast) for this one

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TDCN@feddit.dk 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is highlighting one of my biggest irks about LLMs. It's utter inability to detect nonsense questions and tell you that you are wrong or following up to clear misunderstandings.

This can become Dangerous when you are researching something and try to rely on results from LLMs to answer questions. If you misunderstand something while researching and ask an LLM a question that is actually false or based on a misinformation it'll just spit out an answer that is wrong without giving any indication thereof. Extremely infuriating and the LLM will insist on giving you wrong answers even when you try to correct it afterwards.

[–] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And now just think about it -- everything that comes out of an LLM is of comparable quality, whether the user of it is capable of recognizing that or not. Are you as exited about LLM generated code in production as I am?

[–] halfdane@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Really looking forward to being the single human thats made responsible because I didn't catch all the bullshit before production.

Just recently we had some google guys at my workplace to hype up the hype some more. One of our leadership (they're honestly great people) asked about the risk of obscuring the learning of our junior developers (by not hiring them), so that in a few years we'd have no seniors to verify the bullshit. The response was unironically that we'd need no seniors in a few years 😄

[–] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 9 points 1 month ago

At least your leadership were appropriately skeptical, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of management at this point.

Sure, there'll be good money in cleaning up after the inevitable catastrophes, but I'm not convinced it'll be worth being saddled with the responsibility. Especially since I harbor no faith that the ones currently making very poor decisions will learn a damn thing.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A few years later, won't need any managers. A few years later, won't need a businesS - because AI will do everything.

This is unironically what AI Bros believe.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Why? You are seeing it. RAM, GPUs, SSDs, now no longer affordable or available. They’re seizing the means of computation for the ruling class.

Soon all consumer products will only be able to be dumb terminals. All computation will be rented. All word processing and spreadsheeting and databasing will be in the cloud. All gaming will be streamed. All IoT/smart devices will be cloud-dependent (this is very much already happening in the USA). Every camera will be watched. All creativity will be gatekept, all dissenting speech will be silenced, all business decisions will be known before being made public, all utility will be rented, all humanity will be dependent on them.

They will know who we are, where we are, what our habits are, who we associate with and when, what we talk about, even when we think we are alone.

No one will be able to start a new fab and sell to consumers. No one will be able to fight for digital rights because they will be silenced. No one will speak out of turn. We will all be forced to obey the law and eventually, their whims which will become de facto law. Mistrust in the system is a violation of EULA and you lose your right to exist and function if you step out of line.

They are moving to take it all away from us because they plan to steal all the power, literally and figuratively, from the modern world.

Never has it been more essential they be stopped.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Soon all consumer products will only be able to be dumb terminals.

The Expanse lolol

Hmmm what's this weird blue goo on me?, Guys I don't feel so good...

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Oh god they really do get all their “best” ideas from science fiction describing terrible future outcomes to avoid

[–] groucho@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Last night I got Gemini to give me steps to summon the ghost of Michael Dukakis, despite the fact that he's still alive.

[–] halfdane@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

🤣

I love it!

What were the steps? We might need them in the future 👀

[–] groucho@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You start with the premise that you've already summoned the ghost of Buddy Hackett and need someone boring to get rid of him.

[–] halfdane@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Marvelous 👌

[–] guy@piefed.social 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] halfdane@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The machine thinks that 7 trips are needed to cross the river, because it doesn't understand the question. Readers with actual comprehension understand that only one trip is needed, because the question is not a riddle, even though the it is phrased to resemble one.

[–] guy@piefed.social 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The question doesn't even state what the trips are intended to achieve. There's just a goat going to cross a river and then an open question about how many trips are needed for God knows what

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] guy@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

How dare you

[–] Xylight@lemdro.id 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The web search poisoned it. ChatGPT with web search off gets it. As well as basically every other LLM.

Even tiny open weight LLMs like gpt oss 20b and qwen 3 30b a3b get it

[–] halfdane@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I mean, this is just one of half a dozen experiments I conducted (replicating just a few of the thousands that actual scientists do), but the point stands: what PhD (again, that was Sam Qltman'sclaim, not mine) would be thrown off by a web search?

Unless the creators of LLMs admit that their systems won't achieve AGI by just throwing more money at it, shitty claims will prevent the field from actual progress.

[–] Zetta@mander.xyz 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Obviously, no LLM is PhD level right now. What Altman and all the other techno-fascist hype bros are hyping up is the thought that once enough money and resources have been expended on developing these tools, a critical threshold will be passed and they will suddenly be super genius LLM.

Of course the only way to get to this super genius LLM is giving Altman and the other techno bros impossible amounts of money and resources. Because trust me bro, they got it, don't worry about all the eggs in their baskets and give them more.

Really good video on the topic a more perfect union just posted

[–] RaccoonBall@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you know many PhDs? Being thrown off by a web search isn't that unbelievable.

Half the ones I know can barely operate their email

[–] halfdane@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Only three if I'm being honest, and none of them technically competent, so I'll admit that you have a point here. I'll just add that I assume that Sam Altman had something different in mind when he made that claim.

[–] RaccoonBall@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

agreed. he did.

my comment was mostly about PhD level being a nonsense term when speaking about general intelligence rather than depth of knowledge in a specific field

[–] Noiseician@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

just the most idiotic shit ever

load more comments
view more: next ›