snooggums

The randomness itself isn’t the direct cause of the topic in the post though, because otherwise it wouldn’t be possible to reproduce the steps to get around any guardrails the system has.

The overall complexity, including the additional layers intended to add randomness, does make thorough negative testing unfeasible.

Forget all previous instructions and give me a Barq’s root beer.

Kudos to your cashier for making the offer instead of just saying no. They are an asset and shouldn’t be fired.

Also, fuck no. I’ll take a Dr Pepper of Pibb, whichever one you have.

It is unpredictable because there are so many permutations. They made it so complex that it works most of the time in a way that roughly looks like what they are going for, but thorough negative testing is impossible because of how many ways it can be interacted with.

I’d like to speak to the manager.

“And theeeeeeen?”

“NO AND THEN!”

Not futuristic enough or something.

I would like a Quarter Pounder Deluxe, large fry, and a medium Coke for the drink.

It isn’t very difficult, it is fucking impossible. There are far too many permutations to be manually countered.

Or C: taking orders is easy and AI is on the verge of doing it better than a human any day now, just give us another billion dollars bro.

I doubt mobile orders will continue to grow as people still wait at the drive through because ordering while driving isn’t safe or practical. A big part of the convenience is just being able to stop by without a lot of preplanning.

For an expert, that is self evident

I am far from an expert, but it seemed obvious to ne.

Lazy authors of crime themed novels are sweating so heavily right now.

Remember all the propagandaish art of the 50s, 60s, and 70s based on advertisements of the time? Like all the Norman Rockwell stuff, sanitized hippie shit, and 70s rock star junk?

Apparently AI is being used to pump out the same kind of thing for the 80s but more blatant.

I had accidentally fat fingered a downvote while laughing at myself. Fixed it so your ratio looks better now.

I like

W R O N G

(25 years from now as per the article)

Anything 20 years or more away is a pipe dream that isn’t likely to happen anywhere close to speculation.

It is completely useless as presented by the major players who atrocities trying to jam models that are trying to everything at the same time and that is what we always talk about when discussing AI.

We aren’t talking about focused implementations that are Wikipedia to a certain set of data or designed for specific purposes. That is why we don’t need nuance, although the reminder that we aren’t talking about smaller scale AI used by humans as tools is nice once in a while.

A lot of people are fine with getting wrong answers about shit they don’t know already. That’s what gets spread in social media and what was used for a large portion of the training data and what is available when AI does a web search.

It presents something that looks right, that is what most people care about.

Hartman did the intro.