The other interesting thing is that if you try it a bunch of times, sometimes it uses the calculator and sometimes it does not. It, however, always claims that it used the calculator, unless it didn't and you tell it that the answer is wrong.
I think something very fishy is going on, along the lines of them having done empirical research and found that fucking up the numbers and lying about it makes people more likely to believe that gemini is sentient. It is a lot weirder (and a lot more dangerous, if someone used it to calculate things) than "it doesn't have a calculator" or "poor LLMs cant do math". It gets a lot of digits correct somehow.
Frankly this is ridiculous. They have a calculator integrated in the google search. That they don't have one in their AIs feels deliberate, particularly given that there's a plenty of LLMs that actually run calculator almost all of the time.
edit: lying that it used a calculator is rather strange, too. Humans don't say "code interpreter" or "direct calculator" when asked to multiply two numbers. What the fuck is a "direct calculator"? Why is it talking about "code interpreter" and "direct calculator" conditionally on there being digits (I never saw it say that it used a "code interpreter" when the problem wasn't mathematical), rather than conditional on there being a [run tool] token outputted earlier?
The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. Clearly for it to say that it used a "code interpreter" and a "direct calculator" (what ever that is), it had to be fine tuned to say that. Consequently to a bunch of numbers, rather than consequently to a [run tool] thing it uses to run a tool.
edit: basically, congratulations Google, you have halfway convinced me that an "artificial lying sack of shit" is possible after all. I don't believe that tortured phrases like "code interpreter" and a "direct calculator" actually came from the internet.
These assurances - coming from an "AI" - seem like they would make the person asking the question be less likely to double check the answer (and perhaps less likely to click the downvote button), In my book this would qualify them as a lie, even if I consider LLM to not be any more sentient than a sack of shit.
The funny thing is, even though I wouldn't expect it to be, it is still a lot more arithmetically sound than what ever is it that is going on with it claiming to use a code interpreter and a calculator to double check the result.
It is OK (7 out of 12 correct digits) at being a calculator and it is awesome at being a lying sack of shit.
He fed his post to AI and asked it to list the fictional universes he’d want to live in, and that’s how he got Dune. Precisely the information he needed, just as his post describes.
I am also presuming this is about purely non-fiction technical books
He has Dune on his list of worlds to live in, though...
edit: I know. he fed his post to AI and asked it to list the fictional universes he'd want to live in, and that's how he got Dune. Precisely the information he needed.
Naturally, that system broke down (via capitalists grabbing the expensive fusion power plants for their own purposes)
This is kind of what I have to give to Niven. The guy is a libertarian, but he would follow his story all the way into such results. And his series where organs are being harvested for minor crimes? It completely flew over my head that he was trying to criticize taxes, and not, say, republican tough-on-crime, mass incarceration, and for profit prisons. Because he followed the logic of the story and it aligned naturally with its real life counterpart, the for profit prison system, even if he wanted to make some sort of completely insane anti tax argument where taxing rich people is like harvesting organs or something.
On the other hand, much better regarded Heinlein, also a libertarian, would write up a moon base that exports organic carbon and where you have to pay for oxygen to convert to CO2. Just because he wanted to make a story inside of which "having to pay for air to breathe" works fine.
There is an implicit claim in the red button that it was worth including.
It is like Google’s AI overviews. There can not be a sufficient disclaimer because the overview being on the top of Google search implies a level of usefulness which it does not meet, not even in the “evil plan to make more money briefly” way.
Edit: my analogy to AI disclaimers is using “this device uses nuclei known to the state of California to…” in place of “drop and run”.
Yeah I think it is almost undeniable chatbots trigger some low level brain thing. Eliza has 27% Turing Test pass rate. And long before that, humans attributed weather and random events to sentient gods.
This makes me think of Langford’s original BLIT short story.
And also of rove beetles that parasitize ant hives. These bugs are not ants but they pass the Turing test for ants - they tap the antennae with an ant and the handshake is correct and they are identified as ants from this colony and not unrelated bugs or ants from another colony.
It would have to be more than just river crossings, yeah.
Although I'm also dubious that their LLM is good enough for universal river crossing puzzle solving using a tool. It's not that simple, the constraints have to be translated into the format that the tool understands, and the answer translated back. I got told that o3 solves my river crossing variant but the chat log they gave had incorrect code being run and then a correct answer magically appearing, so I think it wasn't anything quite as general as that.
I’d just write the list then assign randomly. Or perhaps pseudorandomly like sort by hash and then split in two.
One problem is that it is hard to come up with 20 or more completely unrelated puzzles.
Although I don’t think we need a large number for statistical significance here, if it’s like 8/10 solved in the cheating set and 2/10 in the hold back set.
Yeah any time its regurgitating an IMO problem it’s a proof it’salmost superhuman, but any time it actually faces a puzzle with unknown answer, this is not what it is for.
Further support for the memorization claim: I posted examples of novel river crossing puzzles where LLMs completely fail (on this forum).
Note that Apple’s actors / agents river crossing is a well known “jealous husbands” variant, which you can ask a chatbot to explain to you. It gladly explains, even as it can’t follow its own explanation (since of course it isn’t its own explanation but a plagiarized one, even if changes words).
I think what I need to do is to write up a bunch of puzzles, assign them randomly to 2 sets, and test & post one set, while holding back on the second set (not even testing it on any online chatbots). Then in a year or two see how much the set that's public improves, vs the one that's held back.
Can’t be assed to read the bs but sometimes the use after free only happens in some rarely executed code path, or only when one branch is executed then later another branch. So you still may need fuzzing to trigger use after free for Valgrind to detect.
I swear I’m gonna plug an LLM into a rather traditional solver I’m writing. I may tuck deep into the paper a point how it’s quite slow to use an LLM to mutate solutions in a genetic algorithm or a swarm solver. And in any case non LLM would be default.
Normally I wouldn’t sink that low but I got mouths to feed, and frankly, fuck it, they can persist in this madness for much longer than I can stay solvent.
This is as if there was a mass delusion that a pseudorandom number generator can serve as an oracle, predicting the future. Doing any kind of Monte Carlo simulation of something like weather in that world would of course confirm all the dumb shit.
The other interesting thing is that if you try it a bunch of times, sometimes it uses the calculator and sometimes it does not. It, however, always claims that it used the calculator, unless it didn't and you tell it that the answer is wrong.
I think something very fishy is going on, along the lines of them having done empirical research and found that fucking up the numbers and lying about it makes people more likely to believe that gemini is sentient. It is a lot weirder (and a lot more dangerous, if someone used it to calculate things) than "it doesn't have a calculator" or "poor LLMs cant do math". It gets a lot of digits correct somehow.
Frankly this is ridiculous. They have a calculator integrated in the google search. That they don't have one in their AIs feels deliberate, particularly given that there's a plenty of LLMs that actually run calculator almost all of the time.
edit: lying that it used a calculator is rather strange, too. Humans don't say "code interpreter" or "direct calculator" when asked to multiply two numbers. What the fuck is a "direct calculator"? Why is it talking about "code interpreter" and "direct calculator" conditionally on there being digits (I never saw it say that it used a "code interpreter" when the problem wasn't mathematical), rather than conditional on there being a [run tool] token outputted earlier?
The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. Clearly for it to say that it used a "code interpreter" and a "direct calculator" (what ever that is), it had to be fine tuned to say that. Consequently to a bunch of numbers, rather than consequently to a [run tool] thing it uses to run a tool.
edit: basically, congratulations Google, you have halfway convinced me that an "artificial lying sack of shit" is possible after all. I don't believe that tortured phrases like "code interpreter" and a "direct calculator" actually came from the internet.
These assurances - coming from an "AI" - seem like they would make the person asking the question be less likely to double check the answer (and perhaps less likely to click the downvote button), In my book this would qualify them as a lie, even if I consider LLM to not be any more sentient than a sack of shit.