Asking gemini if google is a monopoly
Asking gemini if google is a monopoly
cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/16950456
For those who don't know google gemini is an AI created by google
32 comments
-
-
Seems to be a decent answer considering the source.
-
I just did the same thing with llama and got the same thing
-
-
That's a really long prompt just to have it roll a d2
-
When you get a long and nuanced answer to a seemingly simple question you can be quite certain they know what they're talking about. If you prefer a short and simple answer it's better to ask someone who doesn't.
-
Sometimes, it's just the opposite.
-
It's a LLM. It doesn't "know" what it's talking about. Gemini is designed to write long nuanced answers to 'every' question, unless prompted otherwise.
-
Not knowing what it's talking about is irrelevant if the answer is correct. Humans that knows what they're talking about are just as prone to mistakes as an LLM is. Some could argue that in much more numerous ways too. I don't see the way they work that different from each other as most other people here seem to.
-
-
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
— Albert Einstein
-
-
On a side note the free gemini version (whichever model they use) is absolute poo poo compared to free Claude or even Chatgpt.
32 comments
This doesn’t mean anything. It’s an LLM and it will only give you a valid sounding answer regardless of the truth. “Yes” sounds valid and is probably the one with the most occurrences in the training data.
Stop posting shit like this.
90% of the market sounds like "yes" to me too.
Being a monopoly and engaging in negative monopolistic behaviors are also different things.
For example if the only two burger joints in the world were McDonalds and Burger King, and Burger King decided to replace their burgers with literal shit, actual human and animal feces, would McDonalds be a (I hope and assume) monopoly? Probably. Are they engaging in negative monopolistic behavior? Not necessarily.
Obviously, as a quick aside, fuck Google for their shitty software decisions, their cancelling of great products and their enshittification of a majority of their applications.
However simply having 90% of the market does not technically mean they have done anything wrong. You can't say they have 90% of the market therefore they have done something illegal or have abused being a monopoly.
You have to be specific. You have to call out payment to companies to be the default. But even that isn't quite enough because companies sold access. Can a company be at fault for buying access as the default? It was for sale. It's a weak argument, or at least an incomplete one. You need to prove they abused their position. Or you need to make a case that the industry they are in requires additional regulation as a whole.
I say this because although it sounds like I'm defending Google I'm not. There is a difference between something feeling illegal and something being illegal. Technically, although a recent judgement would disagree with me, they haven't done anything wrong. It feels like they have. I agree it feels like they have. But they haven't (or there are further pending results which will prove otherwise).
Relax bro
Information can't be dismissed simply by stating it was written by an LLM. It's still ad hominem.
What? No, the fact that it's an LLM is pivotal to the reliability of the information. In fact, this isn't even information per se, just the most likely responses to this question synthesized into one response. I don't think you've fully internalized how LLMs work.
It is possible to create an infinite amount of bullshit at no cost. So by simply hurling waves and waves of bullshit at you, we can exhaust you.
Feel free to argue further, I'll be outsourcing my replies to ChatGPT.