Ahh, buckle up for the rest of the comment thread lmao

I’d be more convinced if they intentionally contracted AIDS because they were confident in their slop machine.

… I still wouldn’t use their products, but I’d believe that they believe the word guesser machine might cure cancer

The real danger is the pollution, energy costs, and the fact that everyone who uses the technology rapidly atrophies their cognitive abilities. It’s also dangerous that this automated hacking software is being unleashed without proper monitoring by the extremely negligent and cognitively atrophied humans who built it.

I didn’t quote it, I sent you the entry in the hopes that you might read it yourself and learn something

I don’t accept the computer as intelligent or a being, and I love my computer (it’s objectively an inanimate object tho).

They have not comprehended anything to date, as they don’t actually understand anything, or have an intellect with which to do so. They are probabilistic next word guessing machines, that is what is happening behind the smoke and mirrors, not “thought”.

It’s what you don’t posses about the workings of LLMs (or basic English).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprehension

An important variable of the Turing Test that is never spoken about is the intelligence (or gullibility) of the user.

That’s phenomenally depressing

It’s free because they intend to steal your project if you’re dumb enough to let them scan it

No, a lot of them have LLMs integrated into their search engine, but they themselves are not LLMs.

The search engine I use (SearXNG) is what’s called a meta-search-engine, meaning it runs my query through several different search engines (which I can toggle on or off at will), then parses the results from all of the queried engines, strips out all of the slop bullshit, and returns me actually relevant links.

I think if you wanted to you could attach an LLM to a self-hosted SearXNG instance, but I’m not putting LLM fuckware on my system. I prefer my computations to be deterministic.

They make browser extensions for translations, and my SearXNG can index Japanese sites. I use it to find and download obscure Japanese music albums and ROMs. AI is a very inefficient way to achieve that result.

I disagree

I don’t think I need to comment on how bad the US system has become

No, I think we’re in full agreement on that point, lol

What would a companion study reveal that does the same thing for the math part but just offers calculators instead?

I think that depends on the difficulty of the math in question. If it was something that most people don’t know how to do by hand (like your trigonometry example) you’d probably see a more severe drop off.

I believe they chose fractions because it’s something that everyone who’s gone through the public education system should know, and they’re more relevant to (most people’s) lives than trigonometry (people use them to split bills, calculate tip, etc.)

If you got a group of people who all should know trigonometry (due to their profession perhaps), and then ran the calculator test, it would be more analogous.

What would a companion study reveal that does the same thing for the math part but just offers calculators instead? Probably the same?

That would not be my hypothesis personally, but perhaps I’m biased, I intentionally do most of my basic math mentally and only use the calculator for more complicated equations. If I was in this study I would want to see how much of it I could do without the calculator first… perhaps for the study the calculator use would be compulsory, but I wouldn’t just give up when it was taken away if I didn’t need it in the first place.

Or what if that person had a tutor/help with them but they left for the rest of the test? Should be similar results, right?

I think that would depend on the knowledge the subject had before entering the testing scenario, and also on the quality of the tutor in question. Personally, I don’t always approach things in the conventional way, so a tutor could be more of a hindrance than a help if they disliked my methodology.

Have LLMs become better than Google?

Or has Google just gotten shittier than LLMs?

My SearXNG instance never lies to me, and returns results better than Google used to before they fully enshitified

I don’t think that change would negatively impact the experiment, but for what they were trying to measure I’m unsure of how necessary that step would be.

They weren’t measuring how smart or good at math the participants were, they were specifically measuring changes in focus and persistence (so basically the amount of effort put forward). The findings show that people tend to just give up when you take the LLM away, and I think that with your proposed change you’d still get largely the same findings.

I would agree that LLMs aren’t the entire issue, but they are making the issue far worse at an exponential rate.

I’d be interested to read a study about what factors and/or traits predispose someone to trust an LLM, or allow themselves to become dependent on it.

Their false understanding was likely there before they read the article.

Um, you know all of those were developed before calculators, right?

What does the timing of the advent of the calculator have to do with what I said?

But I never said “similar” at all, I was using them as comparable subjects

I would contest that they are comparable subjects. Entry level piano lessons and music theory are both technically of the same subject, but wildly different in practice. One is suitable for beginners or lay people, the other is not.

You’re so obsessed with calling out someone on not mentioning fractions you’ve missed the point of the test, article, and this thread.

You are projecting your own obsession of using the poor comparison of “AI = Calculator” onto me. That’s why I keep bringing up fractions, it is an easy-to-understand (for most) rebuttal to your logically fallacious proposal.

They use fractions because it was above simple math but not so high level that some of the random people picked might not know it.

Exactly, that’s why your comparison doesn’t work.

Which going back to the real discussion, having randoms whose skill isn’t known even halfway through the test might have been a flaw in the test.

What changes would you make to the experiment to remove the flaw you’re perceiving?

How do you expect that change would impact the outcome?