523
Zuckerberg hailed AI ‘superintelligence’. Then his smart glasses failed on stage | Matthew Cantor
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
523 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
75551 readers
1919 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If I can't rely on a system to perform simple tasks I can easily validate, I'm not sure why I'd trust it to perform complex tasks I would struggle to verify.
Imagine a calculator that reported "1+1=3". It seems silly to use such a machine to do long division.
That's my point, I don't use LLMs for those operations, and I'm aware of their faults, but that doesn't mean they're useless.
So yeah, I look forward to the AI bubble popping, but I'm still going to use LLMs for type of tasks they're actually suited for.
I don't think many people on Lemmy are under the the spell of AI hype, but plenty of people here are knowledgeable enough to know when, and when not, to leverage this useful, but dangerously overhyped and oversold, piece of technology.
A Math PhD will eventually make a simple arithmetic mistake if you ask them to do enough problems. That doesn't invalidate more difficult proofs they have published in papers
Which is why we don't designate a single Math PhD as a definitive source for all mathematical wisdom.
If I'm handed a proof with a simple arithmetic mistake in the logic, that absolutely invalidates it
But you didn't say that. You said you can't trust something that makes basic mistakes. Humans make them all the time. You can't trust any human?
Beginning to think I'm arguing with a bot