Most active commenters
  • freeopinion(5)
  • nosianu(4)

←back to thread

Google AI Overview made up an elaborate story about me

(bsky.app)
693 points jsheard | 17 comments | 01 Sep 25 14:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.405s | source | bottom
Show context
AnEro ◴[01 Sep 25 15:23 UTC] No.45093447[source]▶
I really hope this stays up, despite the politics involvement to a degree. I think this is a situation that is a perfect example of how AI hallucinations/lack of accuracy could significantly impact our lives going forward. A very nuanced and serious topic with lots of back and forth being distilled down to headlines by any source, it is a terrifying reality. Especially if we aren't able to communicate how these tools work to the public. (if they even will care to learn it) At least when humans did this they knew at some level at least they skimmed the information on the person/topic.
replies(8): >>45093755 #>>45093831 #>>45094062 #>>45094915 #>>45095210 #>>45095704 #>>45097171 #>>45097177 #
geerlingguy ◴[01 Sep 25 16:01 UTC] No.45093831[source]▶
I've had multiple people copy and paste AI conversations and results in GitHub issues, emails, etc., and there are I think a growing number of people who blindly trust the results of any of these models... including the 'results summary' posted at the top of Google search results.

Almost every summary I have read through contains at least one glaring mistake, but if it's something I know nothing about, I could see how easy it would be to just trust it, since 95% of it seems true/accurate.

Trust, but verify is all the more relevant today. Except I would discount the trust, even.

replies(8): >>45093911 #>>45094040 #>>45094155 #>>45094750 #>>45097691 #>>45098969 #>>45100795 #>>45107694 #
1. freeopinion ◴[01 Sep 25 16:32 UTC] No.45094155[source]▶
prompt> use javascript to convert a unix timestamp to a date in 'YYYY-MM-DD' format using Temporal

answer> Temporal.Instant.fromEpochSeconds(timestamp).toPlainDate()

Trust but verify?

replies(3): >>45094353 #>>45094358 #>>45096304 #
2. nielsbot ◴[01 Sep 25 16:51 UTC] No.45094353[source]▶
what does this mean in this convo?
replies(2): >>45094514 #>>45094851 #
3. eszed ◴[01 Sep 25 16:51 UTC] No.45094358[source]▶
I mean... Yes? That looks correct to me°, but it's been a minute since I worked with Temporal, so I'd run it myself and examine the output before I cut and paste.

Or have I missed your point?

---

°Missing a TZ assertion, but I don't remember what happens by default. Zulu time? I'd hope so, but that reinforces my point.

replies(1): >>45094438 #
4. nosianu ◴[01 Sep 25 17:00 UTC] No.45094438[source]▶
I would also read the documentation. In the given example, for example, you don't know if the desired fixed format "YYYY-MM-DD" might depend on some locale setting and only works because you happen to have the correct one in that test console.
replies(2): >>45094572 #>>45103572 #
5. freeopinion ◴[01 Sep 25 17:06 UTC] No.45094514[source]▶
If you were considering purchasing a Biology text book, and spot read two chapters, what if you found the following?:

In the first chapter it claimed that most adult humans have 20 teeth.

In the second chapter you read that female humans have 22 chromosomes and male humans have 23.

You find these claims in the 24 pages you sample. Do you buy the book?

Companies are paying huge sums to AI companies with worse track records.

Would you put the book in your reference library if somebody gave it to you for free? Services like Google or DuckDuckGo put their AI-generated content at the top of search results with these inaccuracies.

[edit: replace paragraph that somehow got deleted, fix typo]

6. freeopinion ◴[01 Sep 25 17:12 UTC] No.45094572{3}[source]▶
Part of my point is this: If you have to read through the docs to see if the answer can be trusted, why didn't you just read the docs to begin with instead of asking the AI?
replies(2): >>45096193 #>>45124739 #
7. freeopinion ◴[01 Sep 25 17:40 UTC] No.45094851[source]▶
Google distinguished itself early with techniques like PageRank that put more relevant content at the top of their search results.

Is it too late for a rival to distinguish itself with techniques like "Don't put garbage AI at the top of search results"?

8. niccl ◴[01 Sep 25 20:10 UTC] No.45096193{4}[source]▶
It's just dawned on me that one possible reason is that you don't know which docs to read. I've recently been forced into learning some JavaScript. Given the original question I wouldn't have known where to start. Now the AI has given me a bunch of things I can look at to see if it's the right thing
replies(1): >>45097577 #
9. meindnoch ◴[01 Sep 25 20:22 UTC] No.45096304[source]▶

  >Temporal.Instant.fromEpochSeconds(0).toPlainDate()
  Uncaught TypeError: Temporal.Instant.fromEpochSeconds is not a function
Hmm, docs [1] say it should be fromEpochMilliseconds(0). Let's try with that!

  Temporal.Instant.fromEpochMilliseconds(0).toPlainDate()
  Uncaught TypeError: Temporal.Instant.fromEpochMilliseconds(...).toPlainDate is not a function
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
replies(1): >>45097224 #
10. zdragnar ◴[01 Sep 25 22:37 UTC] No.45097224[source]▶
"The docs" also say that it's only available in firefox. If you're going to use the docs, you should use the docs.
replies(1): >>45100255 #
11. freeopinion ◴[01 Sep 25 23:35 UTC] No.45097577{5}[source]▶
If you didn't know enough to provide the original prompt, the AI sends you down the Date path instead of Temporal. But you could have used a 20 year-old search engine that would lead you to Javascript docs. You don't need error-riddled AI-generated code to find your way to the docs.
replies(1): >>45124748 #
12. meindnoch ◴[02 Sep 25 07:55 UTC] No.45100255{3}[source]▶
This output is from Firefox :)
13. MobiusHorizons ◴[02 Sep 25 14:27 UTC] No.45103572{3}[source]▶
I’m pretty sure toPlainDate() returns an object not a string.
replies(1): >>45124655 #
14. nosianu ◴[04 Sep 25 07:41 UTC] No.45124655{4}[source]▶
???

What does that have to do with my comment?

The OP explicitly wrote

> prompt> use javascript to convert a unix timestamp to a date in 'YYYY-MM-DD' format using Temporal

replies(1): >>45128498 #
15. nosianu ◴[04 Sep 25 07:51 UTC] No.45124739{4}[source]▶
Because you skip the step of finding out which docs to read. You get the specific functions and what parts of it you should check presented to you. Also, you only need to do this when it isn't already clear.
16. nosianu ◴[04 Sep 25 07:52 UTC] No.45124748{6}[source]▶
Are you saying there is more than one way to solve most problems in life? I don't believe it! Obviously, only what you personally like is the one true way. /s
17. MobiusHorizons ◴[04 Sep 25 15:39 UTC] No.45128498{5}[source]▶
> answer> Temporal.Instant.fromEpochSeconds(timestamp).toPlainDate()

The answer ends in `toPlainDate()` which returns an object with year, month and day properties. ie it does not output the requested format.

This is in addition to the issue that `fromEpochSeconds(timestamp)` really should probably be `fromEpochMilliseconds(timestamp * 1000)`