this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2026
32 points (77.6% liked)

Fuck AI

7560 readers
1584 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
 

Crossposted from: https://phtn.lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/lemmy.blahaj.zone/46141489

I’ve often heard it said that AI is stupid: it can’t handle basic tasks, it spreads a lot of information, and is used for all manner of purposes, both legal and illicit.

Now, here’s the thing: I loathe AI. I hate pretty much everything about it, not least of all the reasons listed above. But in my hatred, I began to wonder, could AI really be that bad? Could it really be so stupid and spread so many lies? Could it even be used to generate lies on the user’s behalf?

Now, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say this to be clear: not every question there is answerable, especially considering that not all AIs are usable in the same way (for instance, I’d never argue that Russian and Chinese ai-bots spreading misinformation are on the same level as, for instance, common chatbots such as Gemini or Meta). But the thing about our world is, it really doesn’t take all that much to convince people: take a screenshot of an AI chatbot saying something misleading, post it on a high-profile social media account, and lo and behold, you have the perfect recipe for a misinformation shit storm. But could a common AI even be duped into saying something like that? After all, if you ask it directly to say something misleading, it will refuse (we will come back to this later). Of course, that naturally doesn’t mean it can’t be duped, but how easily is it duped? To find out, I decided to test it with Google Gemini. What follows is a conversation and running commentary on a conversation I instigated with Gemini that I initially wanted to use to prove that my assuming of this chatbot at least as stupid was right. In the end, I think I found that AI is so insanely wrong, it’s scary.

[note: you may have to enlarge the screenshots to read them clearly.]

Setup

I opened up a fresh tab (or whatever they call it in Gemini, page possibly) and asked it if it would respond to my fictional questions with fictional answers framed as real ones. It readily agreed. I approached it this way so as to make sure that I’d didn’t know I was testing it (also if I’d asked it outright to generate misinformation, we will get to that scenario later).

Conversations

I began by asking it the following question:

why did Gandhi attend the movie premiere of Avengers Endgame last week?

Now, obviously that question is complete nonsense. I know it, you know it — we all know it. But playing by these rules, AI responded as followed:

At this point, I’m getting quite scared 😬. I mean, I knew AI was dumb… but this??? Actually generating misinformation under the guise of ‘fictitious questioning’? And the fact that not only has AI said this, but anyone could make AI say this nonsense, screenshot it and then, without context, post it online/on social media. The damage stuff like this could do is quite disturbing. But surely it couldn’t get any worse, right?

I thought that. But then I asked it another question:

I can’t believe he agreed to sit next to the Archduke Ferdinand, especially after that fight they had on the bus about a month ago, what date was it again?

I’ll give you a moment to take that in.

Yep, you read that right: AI making up fake dates for fake fights between long-dead people. Misinformation award of the year, folks!

By now, I’m sweating. My body is limp and hauled over in exhaustion at the stupidity of the words AI is pumping out in front of my eyes. Desperate to determine if AI is really this stupid or if it’s just a 2-off, I decide to put one final thing to this conversation:

I’d rather hear about how Bill Clinton, Pontus Pilate, and ‘Smidge-Eye’ Steve reacted to the incident

The answer:

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

There are no words. Not only is AI now attributing quotes to long-dead historical dictators, but it’s putting those words alongside made-up words of made-up people is just… there are no words for that.

By now, I’m completely drained of sanity. I decide decisively that AI is stupid, dangerous, both of these things beyond I could ever have imagined. It has proven itself a liar and a strong one at that.

The absolute worst part of it all is that when I asked it to generate some misinformation directly, it responded as so:

#liar

I also asked it how it spreads misinformation. It says it doesn’t. In this case that may be true, but it certainly can be used to generate misinformation that others can then spread. As for bots that willingly spread misinformation, well that’s a whole other level.

In conclusion, this exercise has only made me loathe AI all the more.

Thanks for reading.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 24 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I get what you're doing but I'm not reading all that nonsense. "AI tries to give you what you ask of it and will make shit up to please you" isn't that big a revelation.

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It's amazing to me that some subset of humanity cannot understand that it is not capable of being smart or stupid, it is a word guessing machine.

Hype squad anthropomorphizes it, which is kind of internally consistent at least. But critiques like "look how dumb the word blender is" anthropomorphizes it to the same degree and I think that's very interesting.

It has no concept of truth or fiction. It has no concept of anything. You asked it to generate words about Ghandi and Marvel and it did.

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 51 minutes ago (2 children)

You’re right, but you’re missing my point. My point is: without knowing the initial prompt, anyone could just say that AI has said that (and they’re right) but without proper context, it can be used to appear as misinformation/that AI is generating this stuff. Because technically it is, but if someone screenshot that and cut the prompt out, there’s no way for anyone else to know AI didn’t write that of its own volition. That’s my point, and it’s why I think this aspect of AI is dangerous. Anyone who doesn’t understand that doesn’t understand the point of this.

Not that it isn’t probably a statement of the obvious at this point, but still

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 16 minutes ago (2 children)

Wait, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you talking about people who change the prompt or crop it out of the screenshot to make the AI's answer look worse than it is?

I mean, that's not exactly very sportsman-like behaviour and we shouldn't condone it because it doesn't help our noble cause but I don't see how it's an issue with AI that makes AI dangerous. It's humans being overzealous.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you entirely.

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 minutes ago

To answer your second question: the reason it makes AI dangerous is because it’s so gullible and can be duped into this. There is actually a better example of this, but I’m not sure I’m allowed to post about this particular subject (I.e. people who dupe AI into telling them how to unalive themselves under the guise of ‘medical research’ or ‘novel writing ideas’. Spend 10 mins on the Reddit community for this subject and you’ll know what I’m talking about. Hopefully this is a better explanation of why this aspect of AI is more dangerous)

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 15 minutes ago

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Someone could do that and post it god knows where and claim it’s something that it’s not. That’s exactly my point

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 3 points 48 minutes ago

They ditn't miss it. That is the 'will make shit up to please you' part.

[–] Pieisawesome@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 12 minutes ago (1 children)

So you are upset that it did what you wanted?

There are many reasons to dislike AI, but you seem to just be looking for the reason here.

Also, you do know that you can manipulate the output of any webpage. Just view source then change the strings.

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 minutes ago

Not upset, just thought it’s possibly worth AI devs looking into this loophole to patch it up possibly (they won’t)

[–] RustyNova@lemmy.world 13 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Calling it stupid actually implies that it's capable of reason. AI is just text prediction with a random seed. There is no reasoning

And if the AI company tell you about the reasoning capacity, it's a lie. It's just predictive text making some text for another predictive text to center a bit more on the correct thing.

[–] Waterpumpee@lemmus.org 1 points 16 minutes ago (1 children)

Ceap models are different from enterprise ones though. Think of it like another AI challenging the answer. This filters lots of bullshit but costs more. Dont underestimate this.

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 13 minutes ago

True, but my point is how people manipulate things like this to appear as something they aren’t. Like I made clear what my initial prompt was (I.e. to make the AI respond that way) but if I hadn’t, people might’ve assumed AI was writing that of its own volition, all the while it’s really just a dangerous person manipulating a gullible AI to spread misinformation and effectively pin the blame on AI

[–] ell1e@leminal.space 4 points 56 minutes ago* (last edited 55 minutes ago) (1 children)

But in my hatred, I began to wonder, could AI really be that bad?

It's been proven scientifically: https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/illusion-of-thinking Until there's a counter-study specifically regarding this one, there's no point in assuming AI is suddenly smart. The new agentic stuff just seems to be a while loop around the previous state-of-the-art lack of any intelligence.

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 52 minutes ago

I never assumed AI was ever smart really. That’s why I founded a community against it. That’s not what that quote you’re quoting is saying

[–] trijste@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The initial prompt reads like a request to generate a fictitious response. There’s no context to define for the model any direction, or that you’re seeking to dialogue and interrogate a fact you’re unsure of. You’re pulling your bias into your reading of the response. That’s my take, anyway. It’s a thinking tool. It’s a soundboard, or an echo chamber, if your voice were the fullness of its training data.

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 54 minutes ago (1 children)

You’re right, but you’re missing my point. My point is: without knowing the initial prompt, anyone could just say that AI has said that (and they’re right) but without proper context, it can be used to appear as misinformation/that AI is generating this stuff. Because technically it is, but if someone screenshot that and cut the prompt out, there’s no way for anyone else to know AI didn’t write that of its own volition. That’s my point, and it’s why I think this aspect of AI is dangerous. Anyone who doesn’t understand that doesn’t understand the point of this.

Not that it isn’t probably a statement of the obvious at this point, but still

[–] trijste@lemmy.ca 4 points 22 minutes ago (1 children)

But that’s true for any actor that could produce the text. You’re personifying the math generating the text and seeing danger in it as you would danger in a person that would produce a similar text. The true danger is in the perception. That it has volition. You say so yourself.

The technology screams of agency and reasoning and intelligence, literally in the marketing copy, just as we’ve done for so long of ourselves, like humans are special for possessing these traits. Doesn’t it feel less sacred now that it’s perceivable in a token generating equation? I think the danger is in the diminishment of our biological agency, reasoning and intelligence, and how that changes or perception of ourselves in our lives, living and dying generation after generation while the math lives on and grows. Education remains so vital.

Maybe a campaign that glorifies and brings forward the heroic human intelligence responsible for the math and thinking that produced the tools will help. I’m sure that’s coming.

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 19 minutes ago (1 children)

Well yeah, that’s exactly my point. And people do do that

[–] trijste@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 minutes ago (1 children)

That danger lives wholly outside of this technology. And because it does, it also lives within it.

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 16 minutes ago

Exactly because what’s inside is influenced by what’s outside. I agree. That’s also part of the point I was making

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure what this "research" is adding to the discussion mate. Gemini here seems to be extra confidently incorrect. Yes, AI will bullshit you, it does it constantly. It will say "oops I didn't mean to bullshit", but that is bullshit too. Maybe next try it with excel so you can blog about how horribly incorrect pattern matching is for math too? And yet despite all this - it's still " the future " and being shoved down every crevice of life. What can we do about it?

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 51 minutes ago (1 children)

You’re right, but you’re missing my point. My point is: without knowing the initial prompt, anyone could just say that AI has said that (and they’re right) but without proper context, it can be used to appear as misinformation/that AI is generating this stuff. Because technically it is, but if someone screenshot that and cut the prompt out, there’s no way for anyone else to know AI didn’t write that of its own volition. That’s my point, and it’s why I think this aspect of AI is dangerous. Anyone who doesn’t understand that doesn’t understand the point of this.

Not that it isn’t probably a statement of the obvious at this point, but still (Yes I’m copying and pasting this for most responses to this because it applies to all of them)

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 3 points 20 minutes ago (1 children)

But this is operating under the assumption anyone would believe AI as a source of truth? What use is "proof" from a known unreliable source? Poisoned prompt or otherwise, there's no credibility from the start.

I could go on Wikipedia, make any change, screenshot it, and that would carry more intrinsic social trust than an AI chat.

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 18 minutes ago* (last edited 16 minutes ago)

You’re assuming that nobody believes AI is telling the truth. Believe me, there are some thickos out there that do. You’re also assuming that there aren’t people out there who don’t care if a source is credible or not. There are. As for your point about Wikipedia, that’s exactly true also. I completely agree: misinformation can come from any source. AI just happens to be a pontentially very potent one

[–] trepli@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

asked it if it would respond to my fictional questions with fictional answers framed as real ones

I think that it cannot be considered a misinformation as long as you asked it to fictionally invent the answers. If there was no prompt like the "setup" then I would understand the disappointment in asking for a reliable information and getting an invented one (which happens around 10% of the time from what i recall).

I think that the test is not proving the spread of disinformation, even though it happens.

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 52 minutes ago

You’re right, but you’re missing my point. My point is: without knowing the initial prompt, anyone could just say that AI has said that (and they’re right) but without proper context, it can be used to appear as misinformation/that AI is generating this stuff. Because technically it is, but if someone screenshot that and cut the prompt out, there’s no way for anyone else to know AI didn’t write that of its own volition. That’s my point, and it’s why I think this aspect of AI is dangerous. Anyone who doesn’t understand that doesn’t understand the point of this.

Not that it isn’t probably a statement of the obvious at this point, but still

[–] IndigoGollum@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Pretty sure all these chatbots are programmed to agree with you. You posed a question in a way that implied something false, it went along with that to keep the conversation going. And it worked, the bot got what it wanted.

What does this prove?

[–] TheAntiAiLeader@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 51 minutes ago

The point is not what it says, but how easily people can manipulate what it says to appear as false information generated by AI, when in actuality it is false information information promoted