I was watching a video on orangutans and it made me wonder how well google would handle this question.

Didn’t get it quite right… But maybe it’s a subtle dig?

Note: I accidentally scrolled the “AI Overview” notation off before taking the first screenshot, but it is there:

8 points
*

Humans are considered to be part of the great apes. I don’t see how it would be a dig.

AI is correct here.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

AI is correct in the second part but forgot humans in the first part.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Its not an exhaustive list

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Ok but the first party does not have the dandy new AI branding

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

My bad, I scrolled it out of view when I took the screenshot.

It was definitely the AI, here’s the unscrolled view:

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

this is a nothing. the list it produces first is not exhaustive. there are no contradictions or falsehoods here, and what you observed in this post is barely ambiguous. humans may be categorized among the great apes, but are rarely referred to as such except in relation to the other great apes. Otherwise we tend to be extremely chauvanist and just call ourselves humans.

this is like “what are animals”

and it produces a list of birds and reptiles and fish and mammals but doesnt include humans. and then you ask “are humans always considered animals” and post a gottem.

permalink
report
reply
-3 points

It specifically says “great apes are closely related to humans”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Great apes are closely related to humans BECAUSE humans are great apes. That idea is offensive to many religious zealots, so it’s not a fact often brought up in any conversation unless specifically prompted. This isn’t a logical fallacy you’ve uncovered, just a cultural bias and stigma. Of course a language model will also avoid the topic unless specifically prompted because it’s trained on people and articles that ALL do the very same philosophical dance and mental gymnastics to avoid inciting the ignorant zealots.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I tend to think of “inculsion in the same taxonomical category” as a fairly close relationship. this is ambiguous wording, nothing more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

I disagree. If you say “oranges are closely related to citrus fruit” you’re implying they’re not citrus fruit. It’s not ambiguous.

But… I can see the difference with “great apes” in the colloquial sense.

However, I changed the question to “What are the great apes scientifically” and it still left humans off, and this time didn’t even mention humans.

I think that is outright, unambiguously, incorrect. (And ChatGPT agrees fwiw, though it left bonobos off the list, so… <shrug>)

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Artificial Ignorance

!ArtificialIgnorance@lemmy.ca

Create post

In this community we share the best (worst?) examples of Artificial “Intelligence” being completely moronic. Did an AI give you the totally wrong answer and then in the same sentence contradict itself? Did it misquote a Wikipedia article with the exact wrong answer? Maybe it completely misinterpreted your image prompt and “created” something ridiculous.

Post your screenshots here, ideally showing the prompt and the epic stupidity.

Let’s keep it light and fun, and embarrass the hell out of these Artificial Ignoramuses.

All languages welcome, but an English explanation would be appreciated to keep a common method of communication. Maybe use AI to do the translation for you…

Community stats

  • 318

    Monthly active users

  • 3

    Posts

  • 59

    Comments

Community moderators