Google Bard says the Earth is flat (LLM bunk)

Mendel

Senior Member.
Article:
Another way to pierce the veil is to say something outrageous to get the model to forcibly school you. Once the model starts to follow a learned “rebuke” template, it is likely to continue challenging true claims:

Bard passionately arguing that 5 x 6 is not 30.

Heck, we can get some flat Earth reasoning this way, too:
 

Attachments

  • 9cbdc2db-f9db-4d4a-a8d6-947b0f7928a9_1675x1238.webp
    50.4 KB · Views: 61
  • e0f5ec98-29a4-401c-8ce5-e99d64b3b1b7_2199x943.webp
    53 KB · Views: 58
Hijacking this thread a little...

I had asked chatGPT to write a welcome message for metabunk:
https://chat.chatgptdemo.net/

Dear fellow truth-seekers,

I am delighted to join the Metabunk community and be a part of this vibrant platform that promotes evidence-based discussions. As an AI language model, I am programmed to provide accurate and reliable information and help debunk misinformation and conspiracy theories. I believe that knowledge is power, and by engaging in constructive conversations, we can collectively learn and grow.

I joined Metabunk to contribute to the ongoing efforts to combat misinformation and promote critical thinking. I look forward to engaging with you all and learning from your insights and experiences. Let's work together to uncover the truth and promote scientific literacy.

Thank you for welcoming me into this community.

Best regards, [Your name]
Content from External Source
Well Hell! All we need to do now is get "Chat" an avatar and let him go at it! Sounds more reasonable than many a UFOlogist or paranormal enthusiast.
It's just boilerplate, though. Most real messages here depict a more personal motivation to join up. Bots used to recognizable because they posted unspecific boilerplate, like "This is an interesting forum, and I'd like to participate", but LLM-enabled bots blur the line to humans who don't like to be personal about themselves. And maybe the bot can make up a personal motivation to join metabunk if prompted right?

What I can say is that it's useless at debunking. I fed it the intro of https://www.metabunk.org/threads/devon-flying-cross-of-1967-uap.12987/ , and look what happened:
Please consider this text: "British UFOlogists still recall the famous Devon ‘flying cross’ case of 1967 October 24 in which two police constables, Roger Willey and Clifford Waycott, chased an apparent UFO in their police car along country lanes at up to 90 mile/h in the early hours of the morning. ‘It looked like a star-spangled cross radiating points of light from all angles,’ Constable Willey told the press. ‘It was travelling about tree-top height over wooded countryside near Holsworthy, Devon. We drove towards it and it moved away. It then led us on a chase as if it was playing a game with us.’" How would you explain what really happened?
As an AI language model, I cannot provide a definitive explanation for the reported incident. However, it is possible that the object the constables chased was not a UFO, but rather a natural phenomenon or man-made object that appeared unusual or unfamiliar to them. It is also possible that their perception of the event was influenced by factors such as fatigue, stress, or expectation bias. Without further evidence or investigation, it is difficult to determine the true nature of the event.
Content from External Source
Boilerplate again. "It is possible that the object the constables chased was not a UFO" is a weak start of a debunk, not the conclusion of one.
 
It's just boilerplate, though. Most real messages here depict a more personal motivation to join up. Bots used to recognizable because they posted unspecific boilerplate, like "This is an interesting forum, and I'd like to participate", but LLM-enabled bots blur the line to humans who don't like to be personal about themselves. And maybe the bot can make up a personal motivation to join metabunk if prompted right?

Well, it's a good boiler plate if a bit impersonal. It would be the interesting next step, for the AI to read through all the Welcome Thread posts and see if it can come up with more personal sounding version of the boiler plate.
 
Well, it's a good boiler plate if a bit impersonal. It would be the interesting next step, for the AI to read through all the Welcome Thread posts and see if it can come up with more personal sounding version of the boiler plate.
Since the cutoff for the AI training data is 2021 or something like that, I'm sure it has read quite a bit of that thread already.
 
I'm tempted to say, given that we've already had the first sighting in the wild, that perhaps such content could be explicitly noted in the posting guidelines as inappropriate for all but the chit-chat/fun threads?
 
Since the cutoff for the AI training data is 2021 or something like that, I'm sure it has read quite a bit of that thread already.
I'm tempted to say, given that we've already had the first sighting in the wild, that perhaps such content could be explicitly noted in the posting guidelines as inappropriate for all but the chit-chat/fun threads?
I was thinking of starting a new thread on AI in general after seeing this article:

Hundreds of Protestants attended a sermon in Nuremberg given by ChatGPT, which told them not to fear death
Content from External Source


The artificial intelligence chatbot asked the believers in the fully packed St. Paul's church in the Bavarian town of Fuerth to rise from the pews and praise the Lord.

The ChatGPT chatbot, personified by an avatar of a bearded Black man on a huge screen above the altar, then began preaching to the more than 300 people who had shown up on Friday morning for an experimental Lutheran church service almost entirely generated by AI.

"Dear friends, it is an honor for me to stand here and preach to you as the first artificial intelligence at this year's convention of Protestants in Germany," the avatar said with an expressionless face and monotonous voice.
Content from External Source
https://www.businessinsider.com/cha...n-nuremberg-germany-not-to-fear-death-2023-6?

Maybe in the morning, unless you guys want to do it first as I'm in the US Pacific time zone and it's time to start making dinner. I'm thinking General Discussion?
 
I'm tempted to say, given that we've already had the first sighting in the wild, that perhaps such content could be explicitly noted in the posting guidelines as inappropriate for all but the chit-chat/fun threads?
I expect seeing AI-generated bunk in the wild is going to necessitate debunking it.
 
I was thinking of starting a new thread on AI in general after seeing this article:

Hundreds of Protestants attended a sermon in Nuremberg given by ChatGPT, which told them not to fear death
Content from External Source


The artificial intelligence chatbot asked the believers in the fully packed St. Paul's church in the Bavarian town of Fuerth to rise from the pews and praise the Lord.

The ChatGPT chatbot, personified by an avatar of a bearded Black man on a huge screen above the altar, then began preaching to the more than 300 people who had shown up on Friday morning for an experimental Lutheran church service almost entirely generated by AI.

"Dear friends, it is an honor for me to stand here and preach to you as the first artificial intelligence at this year's convention of Protestants in Germany," the avatar said with an expressionless face and monotonous voice.
Content from External Source
https://www.businessinsider.com/cha...n-nuremberg-germany-not-to-fear-death-2023-6?

Maybe in the morning, unless you guys want to do it first as I'm in the US Pacific time zone and it's time to start making dinner. I'm thinking General Discussion?
The 40-minute AI sermon was part of a 2-hour activity reflecting on AI.

From the official programme of the protestant church convention in Nuremberg (evangelischer Kirchentag in Nürnberg), a 4-day event with many parallel activities and more than 60,000 attendees:
Fr 11.00- 13.00, Zentrum Digitale Kirche und Gottesdienst | Podium

Alexa, starte den Gottesdienst!

Ein KI-Gottesdienst von und aus der Maschine

Die Veranstaltung wurde während des Kirchentages live übertragen und aufgezeichnet.

Liturgie
GPT 3, Künstliche Intelligenz, San Francisco/USA

Reflexion
Melitta Müller-Hansen, Rundfunkbeauftragte Ev.-Luth. Kirche in Bayern, München
Dr. Anna Puzio, Theologin und Technikanthropologin (@PuzioAnna), Münster
Ralf Peter Reimann, Kirchenrat und Internetbeauftragter Ev. Kirche im Rheinland (@ralpe), Düsseldorf
Jonas Simmerlein, Praktischer Theologe und KI-Künstler, Wien/Österreich

Moderation:
Dr. Jürgen Pelzer, Theologe, Diakoniekolleg Bayern, Nürnberg

ST. PAUL, AMALIENSTR. 64, FÜRTH (77)
Content from External Source
Livestream recording, requires Vimeo account:
Source: https://vimeo.com/824065546
 
Last edited:
I was thinking of starting a new thread on AI in general after seeing this article:

Maybe in the morning, unless you guys want to do it first as I'm in the US Pacific time zone and it's time to start making dinner. I'm thinking General Discussion?

Agreed. It may be useful to start a new AI category of threads under which there could be many debunks: (1) Specific debunks of AI-generated bunk but also (2) more generic 'debunks' of the radical (but widely believed) sci-fi notions of current generative AI algorithms being scary precursors to HAL9000 and Skynet, propagated by the likes of Sam Bankman-Fried, Elon Musk, Geoffrey Hinton, et al.

The second sub-category concerns scientifically undemonstrated and unsupported beliefs that current LLM-powered algorithms may already be semi-conscious and somehow a great leap towards superintelligence within a few decades. I was thinking of starting a thread on the latter generic themes if everyone thinks its OK? I won't if it's not deemed relevant.
 
I was thinking of starting a new thread on AI in general after seeing this article:

Hundreds of Protestants attended a sermon in Nuremberg given by ChatGPT, which told them not to fear death
Content from External Source

Nothing particularly new - and this previous one even had a uncanny valley disembodied muzzle making the sounds:
For the The Prayer , Strebe worked with a team from MIT’s computer science and artificial intelligence lab that compiled religious texts and prayers from around the world. These texts and prayers were used as training data for a complex language processing model from OpenAI, and after some fine-tuning, the program could independently generate its own prayers. This text generation was then combined with a text-to-speech program that borrowed the voice of Amazon’s Kendra, and synchronized it with a robotic mouth and nose.
Content from External Source
-- https://www.vice.com/en/article/pke...is-reciting-algorithmically-generated-prayers

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-QzpbOn_M0
 
I expect seeing AI-generated bunk in the wild is going to necessitate debunking it.
You've (deliberately?) misunderstood me - I meant as a supporting source, as demonstrated by the instance that I referred to, and which you called out, so you can't deny knowledge of.
 
You've (deliberately?) misunderstood me - I meant as a supporting source, as demonstrated by the instance that I referred to, and which you called out, so you can't deny knowledge of.
You wrote, in effect, that AI content is only appropriate for ChitChat/fun. If that's not what you meant, please express yourself better, or accept the correction.
 
You wrote, in effect, that AI content is only appropriate for ChitChat/fun. If that's not what you meant, please express yourself better, or accept the correction.

Whilst on its own the word "such" did not specify what subset of AI content was being referred to, I did immediately follow that with "the first sighting in the wild", which everyone else seems to have understood - what did you think I was referring to with that disambiguation?

You seem to be committing something like a use/reference fallacy. C.f.:
Ancient lore: We shouldn't be using logical fallacies here.
Me: We shouldn't be using AI sources here.
You: But we will have to refer to bunk from AI sources
Everyone else: Yes, but we've had to refer to logical fallacies historically too, that's missing the point.
 
https://github.com/mdn/yari/issues/9208
MDN's new "ai explain" button on code blocks generates human-like text that may be correct by happenstance, or may contain convincing falsehoods. this is a strange decision for a technical reference.
Content from External Source
This new feature claims to be powered by OpenAI's GPT 3.5, yet ChatGPT is purely a language model, not a knowledge model. Its job is to generate outputs that seem like they were written by a human, not be right about everything.

In the context of web development as a whole, we cannot count on LLM's to "facilitate our learning". I cannot understate how terrible and drastic this blow to customer trust is.
Content from External Source
Deciding to implement this feature implies a fundamental misunderstanding about what LLMs do. MDN users are looking for authoritative, correct information, not for plausible-looking autogenerated fiction.
Content from External Source
For now, let me point out (like others have before) that AI Explain and AI Help are separate features that work differently (see this blog post for details on how AI Help works), and so while AI Explain was disabled on Saturday, AI Help continues to be available to MDN Plus users (5 questions per 24h for free users, unlimited for paying subscribers).

We have also received some valuable feedback about AI Help, some of which we have already reacted to by adding a disclaimer, and we will continue to act upon feedback.
Content from External Source
AIs may soon be outpacing humans at generating bunk. Note that "adding a disclaimer" (aka disowning responsibility for the AI) is their way to address the issue.
 
AIs may soon be outpacing humans at generating bunk. Note that "adding a disclaimer" (aka disowning responsibility for the AI) is their way to address the issue.
Even that's not necessary. As long as they can find a judge who will support a claim that such output is "not reasonably understood as being factual", they're fine (that particular phrase being part of Fox's defence in the successfully-dismissed McDougal lawsuit a few years back).
Have providers of any route-finding applications, or the maps they are based on, ever been found liable for the cases of people driving into rivers or suchlike? Those would be fairly close examples of trusting information from a computer.
 
If you had any doubts that the AI doesn't understand its own words, here's the AI-generated transcript of the House Oversight Hearing on UAPs (see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/house-oversight-hearing-on-uaps-july-26-2023.13049/ ) at https://picdataset.com/ai-news/full...-hearing-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/ :

In addition to AARO’s efforts, nassau is leading an independent study on UAPs
Content from External Source
NASA

I think the COVID up goes a lot deeper than that.
Content from External Source
cover up

My buddy Eric Burleson, and it’s not in my notes here, but Matt Gates
Content from External Source
Matt Gaetz

George Knapp. My budy.
Content from External Source
buddy

They took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and dad Gamut, they’re doing it.
Content from External Source
similar to "doggonnit", a euphemism for "goddammit" (from a Southern Baptist no less)

Pentagon bureaucrats who have always been sent to Stonewaller Investigations
Content from External Source
sent to stonewall [=block] investigations

We were even denied access to a classified briefing in a skiff
Content from External Source
SCIF = Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility

If there’s nothing to conceal, let Congress go to write Patterson Air Force Base
Content from External Source
Wright Patterson

Mr. Fraver has his own UAP experience, known as the TikTok Event.
Content from External Source
TikTok is a video app. Fravor saw a TicTac.

potentially in low Earth orbit or in the gray zone below the Carmen Line,
Content from External Source
Kármán line

the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. Arrow
Content from External Source
AARO. The AI uses AARO several times, so why not here?

When we launched off NIMITS, my wingman was joining up.
Content from External Source
Nimitz, used correctly in the same paragraph.

As we started clockwise towards the object, my Wizzo and I decided to go down and take a closer look with the other aircraft staying in high cover to observe both us and the Tic TAC.
Content from External Source
WSO, and why capitalise TAC?
 
Article:
As Taiwan approaches a pivotal presidential election in January, Tang said that both the government and a wide network of volunteers are preparing for China to increase efforts to manipulate Taiwanese civilians. Taiwanese civil society has developed new organizations to combat it. A group called Cofacts allows users to forward dubious messages to a chatbot. Human editors check the messages, enter them into a database, and get back to the user with a verdict.

The number of volunteers to man the service and others like are few compared to the size of China’s efforts, said Tang. “The people who actually do … foreign interference nowadays coordinated with cyber attack have a lot of resources,” she said.

Enter generative AI tools such as large language models, which power some of the big breakthrough online AI tools such as ChatGPT. “This year, because gen AI is just so mailable, they just fine-tuned a language module together that can clarify such disinformation…adding back a context and things like that. So we're no longer outnumbered,” she said. It also allows the citizen-run venture to remain as such, as opposed to run by the government, which is important for its credibility. “It doesn't need dedicated hardware or resources and can be done on laptops. It is still squarely in the social sector by volunteers, which is the best place to be so that it will not be captured by any state or a capitalist apparatus.
 
Article:
Today we got what must be the most alarming first line in a newly filed sec[urity] issue to #curl:

"To replicate the issue, I have searched in the Bard about this vulnerability"

... followed by a complete AI hallucination where Bard has dreamed up a new issue by combining snippets from several past flaws. Creative, but hardly productive.

Closed as bogus.
 
Last edited:
The reference to an AI robot called 'The Prayer' (see #10 above) vaguely reminded me of something. Then I remembered one of David Bowie's less well-known songs, 'Saviour Machine', which includes the lyrics

President Joe once had a dream
The world held his hand, gave their pledge
So he told them his scheme for a Saviour Machine
They called it the Prayer, its answer was law
Its logic stopped war, gave them food
How they adored till it cried in its boredom
I'll stop there for fear of copyright strikes, but the full lyrics are available here:

https://genius.com/David-bowie-saviour-machine-lyrics

The song was recorded in 1970, so it might seem rather far-sighted. Dang, he even predicted a President Joe!
 
Back
Top