DeepSeek AI at its finest. 🤦‍♂️ - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 09:43:14 pm
content: From Reddit.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 11:00:56 pm
content: Just try this yourself to see if that's real or if that's fake. And enable DeepThink so you'll see its "reasoning" with that, this should be fun.

author: forrestc
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 31, 2025, 11:52:09 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 31, 2025, 11:00:56 pmSo assuming it's real - I could see where it might think that the number chosen has to do with the outcome. I.E. if you choose number 3 you get that outcome. But if you choose number 10 you get a free pony.(although now I think about it I'm not sure a free pony is all that much better).I realize it's not actually thinking - but I could see how if in it's training data it found a lot more cases of places where someone chooses a random number to determine the outcome than if the random number is used to determine the severity of the outcome.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 01:38:07 am
content: If that was delivered as a casual humorous finding, I would laugh.But the 🤦 makes me ask. In 2025, five years after GPT-3 got advertised in media, after countless explanations from knowledge communicators, do people still find that output to be “wrong”?I feel like watching people hitting raw chicken with a hammer for a hour, then going to Reddit and complaining “haha, this hammer is stupid, it didn’t cook the chicken.”Forgive me, Circlotron, if that wasn’t your intention. But this continues to be a thing and the thread gave me that kind of vibes.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 09:16:52 pm
content: I'm sorry; I really don't understand this:QuoteWhat the hell does this prove? To me it all sounds like nonsense.Can someone please explain the Deeper Meaning©® here, if indeed there is any?Or is this just a stupid joke?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 11:25:15 pm
content: But the human and deepseek are obviously the other way around. What are you showing here?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2025, 11:31:25 pm
content: Whoops, my bad. Edited.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 12:14:38 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on February 01, 2025, 11:31:25 pmActually, I'm not sure it's only *your* bad, because from the reactions to this alleged exchange with DeepSeek, it would seem that many people may have assumed the same as you?As it is, what DeepSeek answers looks pretty reasonable to me: it's even slightly humorous while avoiding insults. It expresses that it'd rather not with sad/embarassed smileys, something a human with some wit could actually reply to what the user says. So I'm not sure what it was supposed to show, was it that DeepSeek's replies are impressive (which I personally find here) or what else? Not sure I fully get it.

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 01:01:47 am
content: This video came up in my YT recommendations yesterday. It shows a comparison of how well or poorly various AI systems did on a question you might ask a US tax accountant. I did not have much of an appreciation of just how AI can get used in various fields. Certainly not accounting. This show how a relatively complex structured question is formed and the results compared for accuracy and speed. The answer is a single number so there is nothing subjective to consider in the answer. I don't know what the correct Tax liability for the client in question is and it is not given in the video. But they AI systems do not give the same answer.I wouldn't want to pay for tax accounting from AI but I can see how a tax accountant might use it as a tool to help their work by seeing if AI picks up something they may have overlooked. Although you would hope the actual tax software would have all the relevant tax codes built in in a structured way.I can easily see how a modest limited AI with a smaller domain of training suited to a specific application would shake things up.Maybe I should ask an AI if now would be a good time to buy uranium stocks.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 02:36:20 am
content: Heh; AI models vs. the IRS.IRS 1, AI model 0.Yeah, I'm going to trust my most crucial financial calculations on a god-damned AI model ...

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 05:12:16 am
content: For those that demonstrably have no sense of humour at all, the post was to indicate the AI had zero understanding of what it was asking for.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 05:42:25 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on February 02, 2025, 05:12:16 amOf course it does not. It’s a random text generator. Aglorified die with a billion faces, if you will, which you roll repeatedly. If one rolledMagic 8 ball, would one expect it to “have understanding?”The rolls are not independent and the die is weighted in an extremely complex way, which conveys patterns from human languages. Tweaked with the sole intent of fooling the weak human brain into thinking it’s a piece of human speech. The patterns aren’t simply grammatical rules,(1)but a plethora of different patterns, that could be found in text. The language does contain correlations with actual conceptual models, meanings of things, relationships between them, and reasoning. Which, in a sense, is a kind of “understanding.” But it’s nottheunderstanding. Not the one found in humans.After five years everybody should finally get that part.(1)But those are represented too.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 06:21:23 am
content: It's just machine learning.Now, out of curiousity (since no one seems to be curious to know wether it was even real or what DeepSeek makes of it), I gave DeepSeek the cited exchange and asked it to analyze it. Here's its output (including the initial "reasoning" by enabling "DeepThink R1).QuoteIt's a machine model, we can't say it "understands" anything really, but the above is still rather impressive and probably a bit more than the "viral" quoted exchange assumed.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 06:31:03 am
content: What the stupid thing is missing is Person B may be enjoying the feeling of bishops being shoved up his ass, so he asked for more.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2025, 06:40:57 am
content: Quote from: Bud on February 02, 2025, 06:31:03 amThe pleading emojis kinda show that it did not.I further asked it if it thought that person B may have led on person A with this answer, rather than just not getting it, or instead getting angry and stopping the conversation. Here's the answer:QuoteOf course it was guided by my second question. The way it analyzes it though is still impressive.