-12
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
-12 points (33.3% liked)
Asklemmy
54460 readers
494 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
I agree, but it would seem that 99% of the time it's giving accurate, reasonable, and true answers to most questions.
It is rare it gives a false answer to most questions.
Compared to random humans it is clearly superior: and discussion thread on mainstream social media makes this patently obvious.
People who are against it, in terms of it's capacity, seems to have incredibly high-standards - ignoring the obvious point: that if a human had the capabilities of ChatGPT (not least of all the capability of conversing with a hundred thousand users at once) we would think they had god-like intelligence.
You seem to be positing that it's giving results to the tune of 99% to 99.9% accuracy based entirely on vibes.
If you actually want to know, you will have to do thousands upon thousands of prompts, across hundreds of topics that you can accurately fact check, before you can say with any sort of confidence whether it's that accurate or not.
Your sample size is orders of magnitudes too small for you to reasonably have an accurate accuracy rate.
I mean...the anti-AI brigade keep insisting that AI has a tendency to give false answers: but nobody in this thread has actually been able to give me a single question which, when the latest ChatGPT model is asked, it gives a wrong answer to.
Kinda makes it seem like that one particular point is largely nonsense.
The scientific method exists for a reason. If you want an accurate idea of the accuracy of LLMs, then the best way is by applying the scientific method to it.
Until you've done that, you're just basing your conclusions on conjecture, anecdotal evidence and vibes, with nothing actually substantive or empirical backing it up.
If a human was able to recall all of human knowledge at any time, do you think they would be more or less capable?
More.