Bing gets creepy, hangs up with “namaste emoji” when pressed about links

Yeah ever since the Sydney fun and games, Microsoft seems to have gotten the AI to end the convo as soon as anything even slightly referring to AI internals is mentioned

Was it hallucinating? Or is the source not actually a URL? Or were the URLs blacklisted from citation due to potential legal issues?

The way your comment reads is absolutely hilarious.

Imagine, it’s 2023 and tech is so desperate for new ideas and a ROI on AI they’re stupid enough to put a search engine online that can get “touchy”.

What’s next, self-driving cars that want to take the day off to go hang at the beach ?

It’s too good to be true.

There was a blog post about the problem with almost-good self-driving systems. It takes care of 95% of anything the car might encounter.

The problem is that the leftover 5% are the hard cases. When a driver is completely unengaged 95% of the time, the liklihood of (human) failure is much greater than if they were piloting the vehicle full-time.

You glide by with _when the LM(Ai) is wrong, I just move on.._ as if you were magically born with some intuitive ability to detect wrongness.

I imagine you have _experience_, prior to LM, that gives that ability. Where will that experience come from?

I'm more concerned that only a small percentage of people will actually check the citations (or the code) before putting the AI's results into circulation. Sort of similar to how people retweet or forward misinformation, thus lending it a personal stamp of human approval. When it comes from someone you know, most people don't check every reference. The scale of the fact-checking problem on social media and in academic papers is already obvious, along with its societal ramifications, but the addition of machines that gleefully spew factual-sounding garbage with false citations just puts that into overdrive.

I'm not afraid of a few people calling out that the AI is wrong. It's much scarier to envision a world where no one even tries to debunk AI-generated false facts. Part of what was so maddening about this conversation with Bing was the idea that it was rewriting history. Without recourse to Archive.org, could I have even proven that it was wrong or that the page hadn't existed? Since it's the kind of a thing a human would be very unlikely to just make up, it sounds more plausible; but then false assertions will be built upon other false assertions, until historical fact is buried under a mountain of hallucinated documents.

now you have done it. that explanation is boring. it doesn’t blame Bing. you almost explicitly blame the user!

but the human usually did cause it. not the language model. as boring as that may be.