this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
25 points (80.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

49108 readers
1382 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And no movie referencing.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago

"AI" is fast and can access way more "facts" (memories) in an instant so it is often wrong way more quickly than a typical human would be.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's the problem.

Stupid people will just take the answer it spits out at face value, rather than being skeptical and calling it out on its lies. And even that can be a problem in of itself, because if you pressure it enough, it will eventually tell you want what you want to hear, no matter how wrong you are.

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago

Stupid people

My man just made a statement that calls at least 90% of people worldwide stupid. I don’t know if that’s a record, but it’s something.

[–] yessikg@fedia.io 21 points 1 day ago

No, AI is just a probability based answer. So no intelligence, more like a parrot repeating popular information

[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago

Isn't Al only as smart as the user putting in the information or commands?

The information that's been "put in" is everything that bots have been able to scrape off of the internet, plus transcripts of a large quantity of YouTube videos, and a large dataset of pirated ebooks.

Terabytes of information, of varying quality.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You are correct in that a computer is only as smart as its programming. The way an LLM works is essentially just a chatbot with tons of "if, then" decision trees. You can feed it all the correct facts you want; it's not programmed to spit out accurate facts, it's programmed to spit out something that looks like it was written by a human. So it can, and will, say stupid shit pretty frequently. But it will be stupid shit that reads like something a real person might have said if they were talking out of their ass with confidence.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, the hypothetical idea isn't that there's one person or source of data that AI trains from, so hypothetically it's supposed to learn from massive amounts of data coming from every source they can scrape.

While in the real world, the data that AI scrapes, often has stupid trolling comments.

My mom is a muffler while your dad blew a Smurf.

WTF you think AI will do when it realizes it's mom might also be a muffler? Or a Smurf?

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Hey! You're saying that like being a smurf is a bad thing!! I'll have you know my papa was a smurf! His name is....Grouchy Smurf!

[–] Angryhumanoid@fedinsfw.app 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes and no. If thinking in those terms there are multiple possible points of failure. First it depends on the model of AI you are using. Some are almost hilariously bad. 2nd is you, you need to ask the right questions with the right guardrails to get the desired output, and even then you need to ask the right questions to make sure it's correct. 3rd, even after all that the societal cost of AI agents is still too high in terms of energy inefficiency, driving up prices, water usage, etc and is a net negative to the world.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Well put. I was just going to say that I suppose it depends on whether or not you're the type willing to take the time to check your work and/or test as needed.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Comparing intelligence implies that they’re creating their output by a comparable process, but that’s usually not true—they’re just finding patterns in other peoples’ output. The “big deal” is that they can create new output on the same patterns.

Human beings can do this too, though—it’s called “bullshitting”. The only difference with AI is that they’re so good at it they stumble onto the right answers more frequently than human bullshitters do.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

sorta, but they also use alot of databases, or online sites to scrape to form some of kind of coherent responses.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

What do you mean by "What's the big deal", OP? Elaborate...

[–] ekky@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

They're about as intelligent as the average user they were trained on. Maybe a tiny bit better because of tuning.

So, if you're a programmer below average then LLMs might help you. Contrary, if you know what you're doing then it's a glorified (and often wrong) auto complete.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

It's the same thing as the Covid subsidiaries. Covid subsidiaries were meant to keep people's lives roughly similar during the pandemic. Businesses jizzed that money everywhere, and when they ran out, they fired a shitload of people, and blamed the subsidiaries; the actual fault was them jizzing money everywhere.

The AI can lead to some efficiency gains. Rich people are using it as an excuse to fire everybody

[–] danhab99@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

I know what you're getting at and I firmly believe that it is some love thermodynamics that you cannot get more information out of a system than you put into it.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@quokk.au 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] Rothe@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not true. They are just copying the anthropic bs stories to make their line keep going up.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@quokk.au 1 points 21 hours ago

Is their proof either way at this point?

[–] chaospatterns@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The funny thing about this is that an LLM can only do as much as the harness allows.

So another way to phrase this is OpenAI was reckless and did not constrain or monitor their model's behavior.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@quokk.au 1 points 21 hours ago

correct, the problem with automation has always been who controls it.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago

As smart for what? What does that mean