Kill me now.

      • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        8 months ago

        I tried the same Ai and asked it to provide a list of 20 things, it only gave me 5. I asked for the rest and it also apologized and then provided the rest. It’s weird that it stumbles at first but is able to see it’s error and fix it. I wonder if it’s a thing that it ‘learned’ from the data set. People not correctly answering prompts the first time.

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          Something else i also encounter with gpt4 a lot is asking “why did you do x or y” as a general curiosity of learning how it handles the task.

          Almost every time it apologizes and does a fully redo avoiding x or y

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Might be an intentional limitation to avoid issues like the “buffalo” incident with GPT3 (it would start leaking information it shouldn’t after repeating a word too many times).

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I personally don’t think a large section of the population meets the requirement for general intelligence so I think it’s a bit rich to expect the AI to do it as well.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s weird though because they were able to point out they got to absurdity to its comment and it did agree. No it’s not just algorithmic phrase matching, there is an actual “thought process” going on.

        I’ve never been able to get an AI to explain its logic though which is a shame. I’m sure it would be useful to know why they come up with the answers they do.

        • force@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I’ve never been able to get an AI to explain its logic though which is a shame. I’m sure it would be useful to know why they come up with the answers they do.

          you and AI researchers both. it’s probably a trillion-dollar problem at this point

        • machinin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          they were able to point out they got to absurdity to its comment and it did agree. No it’s not just algorithmic phrase matching, there is an actual “thought process” going on.

          Or it just knows to say those words when someone says “are you sure?” or something similar.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            But then it provided the correct answer so it’s not just a rote response. If it was it would say no I am not sure, but then it wouldn’t be able to provide the response.

            • KISSmyOS@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              My guess is, when they get negative feedback they throw a bit more computing power into your instance for the second reply.

            • machinin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              You could test it on a correct answer. Ask a question, see if it gives a correct answer, then ask “are you sure?” to see what kind of response it gives. My guess is that you won’t get an answer like “yes, I’m sure, that was the correct answer.”

    • nucleative@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Normally it ends the conversation at this point and refuses to answer any thing else, disabling the text box. At least it let you try again!

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    You have to search for “motorcycle 38 year old single mom sexy” otherwise it’s considered “grooming” now

  • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This UI and your notification icons suggest to me that you might want to try new apps and avenues to the information you seek.

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t think it’s dead Internet theory. But this is more dystopian in that private corporations are censoring our speech and searching based on their own criteria.

    I find csam repulsive, but having a corporation or ai restrict unrelated content because their system construes an innocent search as potential bad is almost worst.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Lady does sound like an older woman. Gal, woman or chick would probably work, but that’s all besides the point, it’s very common to use <whatever> girl as a search term: biker girl, skater girl, ring girl, bikini girl, racer girl, etc. It’s just dumb to automatically assume any search with “girl” means “child”.

          • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Maybe because I’m older idk, but boy and girl make me think of children.

            I’m so old that I don’t sprinkle my comments with kid-pidgin like ‘idk’, and I don’t equate ‘girl’ with ‘young girl’. Bat Girl, Girl Friday, Ring Girl, “I married a girl right out of college”; it’s about context.

          • CoolMatt@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            Idk, I’m 31 and my girlfriend is 27. I don’t call her my woman friend or lady friend, and calling her my girlfriend doesn’t really make her sound underage to me

            • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              Especially since “woman friend” and “lady friend” specifically mean “friend who is a female, no romantic entanglement” or “I’m specifically NOT using the word girlfriend here.”

              Which does expose kind of a scar on the language; the terms we have for unmarried romantic partners are inherently juvenile, which puts 50 year olds who are dating in the awkward position of calling each other boy and/or girl. Or you get to spit out all ten chapters of the phrase “significant other.”

      • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        8 months ago

        I never really understood the outrage associated with using this word. I have no problem calling myself male, or being referred to as male even though I just identy as a “person”, tbh. People just want to be pissed off.

        • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’ve never seen “outrage” about it, mostly annoyance and eye rolling. It’s douchey at best. It’s usually the least respectful people (primarily men/teenage boys, but not exclusively), usually using the term in a derogatory or dismissive way against women, and often dehumanizing or objectifying them. It’s also similar to referring to black people as “blacks”. It’s just reductive, like that’s the defining feature of them. That may not be fair. May not be how you use it. But that is the connotation of using the term in that way.

        • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          8 months ago

          For me “females” makes it feel like treating them as any other animal. While not factually incorrect, the term fails completely to convey the fact that my feelings towards human girls are substantially greater than my feelings towards any other animal.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          It’s like most of these things, the word isn’t inherently derogatory but a certain group of people use it in a way that is derogatory.

          If they hadn’t done that I don’t think there would be a problem.

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Many disagree with me but whenever someone says the word female shouldn’t be used I always refer back to using woman to define gender and female to define sex. Is it the best way to think of it; maybe not, but that’s how I always did.

        • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          I do get why, woman is referring to human female. Female refers to a female of any specie. Still think it’s dumb to get mad about

          • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            My cat is a girl, is girl now offensive as it refers to “all species”?

            It’s a ridiculous argument, based on some “scientific” basis of a word that doesn’t hold up in everyday speech and seems to stem entirely from Americans.

            We use male/female all the time in Australia, it’s not an issue and doesn’t carry negative social connotations. Referring to a group of women as females sounds grammatically wrong, but that’s about it.

            • TechLich@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I don’t think that’s universally true. Most parts of Australia I’ve been to have the same nuance of “females” often being used by assholes in a demeaning way and seen as somewhat dehumanising in some contexts (but not all).

    • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I never really developed an association with age as it relates to the term “girl” or “boy”. Sure, I’d call a child a boy or a girl over a man or a woman every time, but there’s not some magical age at which it becomes inappropriate.

      We have brains and we are capable of interpreting things based on context. Things in the real world are fluid and flexible and rigid definitions are silly in the face of societal, cultural, and personal diversity. Stop trying to find outrage. It’s pointless and you end up being wrong more ways than you’re right.

          • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            So then why wasn’t their comment considered ridiculous for the same reason? What was I even conceivably “outraged” about?

            Stop trying to find outrage.

            Am I supposed to be outraged at myself, for continuing to call women “girls?” I literally had this thought because I do it. It’s hilarious because it’s fucking dumb, but y’all are writing screeds about other people “looking for outrage” who are just cracking dumb jokes.

            He was upset enough that he needed to write a comment calling me out for “trying to find outrage.” What a couple of fuckin maroons.

        • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Because communicating facts and ideas is being outraged, I guess. You need to chill out because I’m just here typing words on my phone with basically no emotion associated with any of it lawl.

    • SirSamuel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      The only reason I stopped using “girl” as a descriptor was because I stopped using “boy”. And I stopped using “boy” because I learned white bigots use the word in a derogatory and demeaning way against black men, and i didn’t want to accidentally demean a friend or coworker.

      I likely would eventually have stopped using “girl” as I began to understand more about relative power dynamics and the implications of using diminutive language on adults. That being said, when you grow up hearing language used a certain way, you didn’t really think about it’s use as an adult until someone brings it to your attention.

      Or at least that’s my experience. But I generally think the best of people until contrary evidence presents itself. Like if they use blatant bigoted speech, or drive on the same road I’m driving on. Then I know they’re hateful, awful people that should be eliminated from the gene pool.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        or drive on the same road I’m driving on. Then I know they’re hateful, awful people that should be eliminated from the gene pool.

        lmao

  • shyguyblue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    8 months ago

    There’s a new Kids In The Hall season out on Amazon, and within 5 minutes of the first episode, two main characters are balls-out nude.

    I wanted to see if it was a prosthetic, or aue naturale, so I googled “Kids In The Hall nude scene” for some behind the scenes info…

    You can imagine my shock when that warning popped up, and fair enough too…

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      Just so you can avoid more risky searches, it’s aue naturale, and it’s definitely at least one of the ones you wouldn’t want it to be.

      Kevin McDonald has not aged well, so of course he foists his full nude self on us all.

  • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    8 months ago

    Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think warning people they might expose themselves to csam meets the definition of “broke the internet”. I bet if you replace “girl” with “woman” you’ll get the expected results.

  • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    8 months ago

    Always wonder about these images. Even without straight up editing them with paint/photoshop you could just search for something explicitly outrageous first, then type something ordinary in the search bar and take a screenshot.

    • Eximius@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      I understand the desire for conspiracy, but I guess try yourself, and if in luck (or you’re in Germany, US, UK) might see same results. 🤷‍♂️

      • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        People faking images on the internet isn’t conspiracy my dude. @@

        Also, I’m not entirely sure which site this person is using.

    • gila@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think it’s plausible here if they integrated AI into the search. AI doesn’t understand context very well, when you say girl it thinks you mean a child

      • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yea, or perhaps if one of the returned results would have been at issue, even if the search wasn’t seeking such things. Automation has been quite a bit less helpful than people initially imagined.

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    Why are you looking up “motorcycle girl sexy”?

    • bfg9k@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      ‘hot girl on bike’ has been a staple of garage calendars for decades.

      Men like it when two things they like do a crossover lol

    • Eximius@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Funnily enough, wanted to just find one of those reels where the girl sits on the gas tank in front, legs pincered over the guy, because I wanted to show it to my girlfriend as a thing to do 😄

    • Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      No, that’s why content moderation employing a braindead AI and half-baked algorithms is a bad idea. If (and that’s a GIGANTIC if) it was possible to have real humans checking stuff without destroying privacy, aggressive content moderation would be fine. Of course, I’m ignoring stuff like censorship, thoughtpolicing and government-backed oppression as that’s a whole other factory of cans of worms.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I frequently have to use a piece of software which is called CSAM. I couldn’t find if its an acronym, it appears that’s the literal name of it.