cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/16950456
For those who don't know google gemini is an AI created by google
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
280 points (90.2% liked)
Technology
59389 readers
3679 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the 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).
Ok. But you usually don't get to 90% market share without doing something "wrong".
Yes but PROVE IT. Define what wrong they did. That's my point.
Take a look at the recent monopoly trial, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitrust-ruling.html
They claim that spending $18 billion per year to be the default search engine makes them monopolistic. That's it? That's all they got?
So the result will be Google stops paying $18 billion and device/browser manufacturers have to put up a Browser Choice dot EU type option.
Go back 10 years and put that law in place. AFAIK Apple has always defaulted to Google. Samsung probably would have sold out to Bing to be the default (although in this case Bing wouldn't reach a monopoly, so I guess that's ok for some reason).
I'm not saying paying to be the default didn't help, but is that the reason they have 90% of the searches? No.
Did they do some else? Maybe. Someone should prove it and we can have an actual change.
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.
I disagree. Information can be factual independent of who or what said it. If it's false, then point to the errors in it, not to the source.
You're correct, but why are you trusting the output by default? Why ask us to debunk something that is well-known to be easy to lead to the answer you want, and that doesn't factually understand what it's saying?
But I'm not trusting it by default and I'm not asking you to debunk anything. I'm simply stating that ad hominem is not a valid counter-argument even in the case of LLMs.
You're saying ad hominem isn't valid as a counterargument, which means you think there's an argument in the first place. But it's not a counterargument at all, because the LLM's claim is not an argument.
ETA: And it wouldn't be ad hominem anyways, since the claim about the reliability of the entity making an argument isn't unrelated to what's being discussed. Ad hominem only applies when the insult isn't valid and related to the argument.
Dismissing something AI has 'said' not because of the content, but because it came from LLM is a choice any individual is free to make. However, that doesn’t serve as evidence against the validity of the content itself. To me, all the mental gymnastics about AI outputs being just meaningless nonsense or mere copying of others is a cop-out answer.
Ok, but if you aren't assuming it's valid, there doesn't need to be evidence of invalidity. If you're demanding evidence of invalidity, you're claiming it's valid in the first place, which you said you aren't doing. In short: there is no need to disprove something which was not proved in the first place. It was claimed without any evidence besides the LLM's output, so it can be dismissed without any evidence. (For the record, I do think Google engages in monopolistic practices; I just disagree that the LLM's claim that this is true, is a valid argument).
How much do you know about how LLMs work? Their outputs aren't nonsense or copying others directly; what they do is emulate the pattern of how we speak. This also results in them emulating the arguments that we make, and the opinions that we hold, etc., because we those are a part of what we say. But they aren't reasoning. They don't know they're making an argument, and they frequently "make mistakes" in doing so. They will easily say something like... I don't know, A=B, B=C, and D=E, so A=E, without realizing they've missed the critical step of C=D. It's not a cop-out to say they're unreliable; it's reality.
I get the concerns about the reliability of LLM generated content, and it's true that LLMs can produce errors because they don’t actually understand what they’re saying. But this isn’t an issue unique to LLMs. Humans also make mistakes, are biased, and get things wrong.
The main point I'm trying to make is that dismissing information just because it came from an LLM is still an ad hominem fallacy. It’s rejecting the content based on the source, not the merits of the argument itself. Whether the information comes from a human or an LLM, it should be judged on its content, not dismissed out of hand. The standard should be the same for any source: evaluate the validity of the information based on evidence and reasoning, not just where it came from.
Ok, I get what you're saying, but I really don't know how to say this differently for the third time: that's not what ad hominem means
It's a form of ad hominem fallacy. That's atleast how I see it. I don't know a better way to describe it. I guess we'll just got to agree to disagree on that one.
Ad hominem is when you attack the entity making a claim using something that's not relevant to the claim itself. Pointing out that someone (general someone, not you) making a claim doesn't have the right credentials to likely know enough about the subject, or doesn't live in the area they're talking about, or is an LLM, aren't ad hominem, because those observations are relevant to the strength of their argument.
I think the fallacy you're looking for could best be described as an appeal to authority fallacy? But honestly I'm not entirely sure either. Anyways I think we covered everything... thanks for the debate :)
As a side note, I’d like to thank you for the polite, good-faith exchange. If more people adopted your conversational style, I’d definitely enjoy my time here a lot more.
Ah, now I feel bad for getting a bit snippy there. You were polite and earnest as well. Thanks for the convo 🫡
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.
Oh yea? Well, why doesn't Ross, the larger of the friends, simply eat the other friends?
That’s a classic misinterpretation of the Friends universe. Ross, being the larger of the group, would never eat the others because his intellectual appetite is already satisfied by correcting their grammar and paleontology facts. Besides, cannibalism is frowned upon in a sitcom setting.