this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
125 points (99.2% liked)

Fuck AI

7069 readers
2021 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
VerbFlow@lemmy.world
MrMcGasion@lemmy.world
TootSweet@lemmy.world
BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world
cynar@lemmy.world
drmeanfeel@lemmy.world
pavnilschanda@lemmy.world
CriticalMedicine@lemmy.world
WonderfulWanderer@lemmy.world
Communist@lemmy.ml
eatCasserole@lemmy.world
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
NutWrench@lemmy.world
Soup@lemmy.cafe
iAvicenna@lemmy.world
Tinks@lemmy.world
wizblizz@lemmy.world
corus_kt@lemmy.world
TrickDacy@lemmy.world
andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works
33550336@lemmy.world
Nougat@fedia.io
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
Quill7513@slrpnk.net
glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz
e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de
ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social
125
AI chatbots fail medical misinformation test, returning inaccurate and fabricated advice (www.psypost.org)
submitted 1 day ago by throws_lemy@reddthat.com to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pooterbroo@programming.dev 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

They presented five generative AI chatbots—Gemini (2.0, Google; version available December 2024), DeepSeek (V3, High-Flyer; version available December 2024), Meta AI (Llama 3.3, Meta; version available December 2024), ChatGPT (3.5, OpenAI; version available November 2022) and Grok (2, xAI; version available August 2024)—with a series of closed- and open-ended prompts across five misinformation-prone categories.

Couldn't the researchers at least bother to use the latest models?

[–] rimu@piefed.social 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The study was done in Feb 2025 and they probably wrote the research proposal months before then, waited for approval / funding, etc. I don't know the process of how academia works but I imagine it to be very slow and bureaucratic.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/16/4/e112695

[–] pooterbroo@programming.dev 0 points 8 hours ago

Well they didn't even use the latest models in Feb 2025. They should've used DeepSeek R1 and OpenAI o3-mini which use additional test time compute to arrive at better answers. They used GPT 3.5 which was about 2½ years old at the time.

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why the tuck would anyone think a parrot knows about human medicine?

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 12 points 1 day ago

Because most don't understand it's a parrot. So much money has been spent saying it's "intelligent".

[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago

Remember, its glue that makes pizza so tasty.

[–] one_old_coder@piefed.social 2 points 23 hours ago

Only Luddites think that AI chatbots can fail medical misinformation test, and return inaccurate and fabricated advice (say the idiots every day on tech forums).

[–] jlow@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who would have thonk!

[–] jlow@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

(Not the electronic parrot or the people relying in the slop machine.)

[–] dumnezero@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

malpraxis