People should understand that words like "unaware" or "overconfident" are not even applicable to these pieces of software. We might build intelligent machines in the future but if you know how these large language models work, it is obvious that it doesn't even make sense to talk about the awareness, intelligence, or confidence of such systems.
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2025
255 points (95.1% liked)
Technology
73331 readers
4012 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I find it so incredibly frustrating that we've gotten to the point where the "marketing guys" are not only in charge, but are believed without question, that what they say is true until proven otherwise.
"AI" becoming the colloquial term for LLMs and them being treated as a flawed intelligence instead of interesting generative constructs is purely in service of people selling them as such. And it's maddening. Because they're worthless for that purpose.
Oh god I just figured it out.
It was never they are good at their tasks, faster, or more money efficient.
They are just confident to stupid people.
Christ, it's exactly the same failing upwards that produced the c suite. They've just automated the process.
Oh good, so that means we can just replace the C-suite with LLMs then, right? Right?
An AI won't need a Golden Parachute when they inevitably fuck it all up.
There goes middle management
They are not only unaware of their own mistakes, they are unaware of their successes. They are generating content that is, per their training corpus, consistent with the input. This gets eerie, and the 'uncanny valley' of the mistakes are all the more striking, but they are just generating content without concept of 'mistake' or' 'success' or the content being a model for something else and not just being a blend of stuff from the training data.
For example:
Me: Generate an image of a frog on a lilypad.
LLM: I'll try to create that — a peaceful frog on a lilypad in a serene pond scene. The image will appear shortly below.
<includes a perfectly credible picture of a frog on a lilypad, request successfully processed>
Me (lying): That seems to have produced a frog under a lilypad instead of on top.
LLM: Thanks for pointing that out! I'm generating a corrected version now with the frog clearly sitting on top of the lilypad. It’ll appear below shortly.
It didn't know anything about the picture, it just took the input at it's word. A human would have stopped to say "uhh... what do you mean, the lilypad is on water and frog is on top of that?" Or if the human were really trying to just do the request without clarification, they might have tried to think "maybe he wanted it from the perspective of a fish, and he wanted the frog underwater?". A human wouldn't have gone "you are right, I made a mistake, here I've tried again" and include almost the exact same thing.
But tha training data isn't predominantly people blatantly lying about such obvious things or second guessing things that were done so obviously normally correct.
The use of language like "unaware" when people are discussing LLMs drives me crazy. LLMs aren't "aware" of anything. They do not have a capacity for awareness in the first place.
People need to stop taking about them using terms that imply thought or consciousness, because it subtly feeds into the idea that they are capable of such.
Okay fine, the LLM does not take into account in the context of its prompt that yada yada. Happy now word police, or do I need to pay a fine too? The real problem is people are replacing their brains with chatbots owned by the rich so soon their thoughts and by extension the truth will be owned by the rich, but go off pat yourself on the back because you preserved your holy sentience spook for another day.
prompting concerns
Oh you.
If you don't know you are wrong, when you have been shown to be wrong, you are not intelligent. So A.I. has become "Adequate Intelligence".
That definition seems a bit shaky. Trump & co. are mentally ill but they do have a minimum of intelligence.
As any modern computer system, LLMs are much better and smarter than us at certain tasks while terrible at others. You could say that having good memory and communication skills is part of what defines an intelligent person. Not everyone has those abilities, but LLMs do.
My point is, there's nothing useful coming out of the arguments over the semantics of the word "intelligence".
Large language models aren’t designed to be knowledge machines - they’re designed to generate natural-sounding language, nothing more. The fact that they ever get things right is just a byproduct of their training data containing a lot of correct information. These systems aren’t generally intelligent, and people need to stop treating them as if they are. Complaining that an LLM gives out wrong information isn’t a failure of the model itself - it’s a mismatch of expectations.
load more comments
(7 replies)
What a terrible headline. Self-aware? Really?
It's easy, just ask the AI "are you sure"? Until it stops changing it's answer.
But seriously, LLMs are just advanced autocomplete.
I kid you not, early on (mid 2023) some guy mentioned using ChatGPT for his work and not even checking the output (he was in some sort of non-techie field that was still in the wheelhouse of text generation). I expresssed that LLMs can include some glaring mistakes and he said he fixed it by always including in his prompt "Do not hallucinate content and verify all data is actually correct.".
Ah, well then, if he tells the bot to not hallucinate and validate output there's no reason to not trust the output. After all, you told the bot not to, and we all know that self regulation works without issue all of the time.
It gave me flashbacks when the Replit guy complained that the LLM deleted his data despite being told in all caps not to multiple times.
People really really don't understand how these things work...
The people who make them don't really understand how they work either. They know how to train them and how the software works, but they don't really know how it comes up with the answers it comes up with. They just do a ron of trial and error. Correlation is all they really have. Which of course is how a lot of medical science works too. So they have good company.
Ah, the monte-carlo approach to truth.
They can even get math wrong. Which surprised me. Had to tell it the answer is wrong for them to recalculate and then get the correct answer. It was simple percentages of a list of numbers I had asked.
Fun thing, when it gets the answer right, tell it is was wrong and then see it apologize and "correct" itself to give the wrong answer.
In my experience it can, but it has been pretty uncommon. But I also don't usually ask questions with only one answer.
Language models are unsuitable for math problems broadly speaking. We already have good technology solutions for that category of problems. Luckily, you can combine the two - prompt the model to write a program that solves your math problem, then execute it. You're likely to see a lot more success using this approach.
Also, generally the best interfaces for LLM will combine non-LLM facilities transparently. The LLM might be able to translate the prose to the format the math engine desires and then an intermediate layer recognizes a tag to submit an excerpt to a math engine and substitute the chunk with output from the math engine.
Even for servicing a request to generate an image, the text generation model runs independent of the image generation, and the intermediate layer combines them. Which can cause fun disconnects like the guy asking for a full glass of wine. The text generation half is completely oblivious to the image generation half. So it responds playing the role of a graphic artist dutifully doing the work without ever 'seeing' the image, but it assumes the image is good because that's consistent with training output, but then the user corrects it and it goes about admitting that the picture (that it never 'looked' at) was wrong and retrying the image generator with the additional context, to produce a similarly botched picture.
I once gave some kind of math problem (how to break down a certain amount of money into bills) and the llm wrote a python script for it, ran it and thus gave me the correct answer. Kind of clever really.
Is that a recycled piece from 2023? Because we already knew that.
However, when the participants and LLMs were asked retroactively how well they thought they did, only the humans appeared able to adjust expectations
This is what everyone with a fucking clue has been saying for the past 5, 6? years these stupid fucking chatbots have been around.
About halfway through the article they quote a paper from 2023:
Similarly, another study from 2023 found LLMs “hallucinated,” or produced incorrect information, in 69 to 88 percent of legal queries.
The LLM space has been changing very quickly over the past few years. Yes, LLMs today still "hallucinate", but you're not doing anyone a service by reporting in 2025 the state of the field over 2 years before.
Oh shit, they do behave like humans after all.
Why is a researcher with a PhD in social sciences researching the accuracy confidence of predictive text, how has this person gotten to where they are without being able to understand that LLMs don't think? Surely that came up when he started even considering this brainfart of a research project?
Someone has to prove it wrong before it's actually wrong. Maybe they set out to discredit the bots
I guess, but it's like proving your phones predictive text has confidence in its suggestions regardless of accuracy. Confidence is not an attribute of a math function, they are attributing intelligence to a predictive model.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›