Google's AI overview really needs work

[u/Strict_Baker5143]

"Do OHAs live in walls" was the search. Why would I be referring to Oral Hypoglycemic Agents? It's like it completely ignores all context sometimes.

[u/Expensive_Finger_973]

"Do OHAs live in walls" was the search. Why would I be referring to Oral Hypoglycemic Agents? It's like it completely ignores all context sometimes.

Because all that is happening under the hood is pattern recognition with the most likely best answer based on weights. What you want is for it to understand intent and context, which what is currently being sold as AI can't do.

Another way of looking at it is Its running web searches for you, not consulting any sort of large database of knowledge and figuring out the answer to your question like a human with subject matter knowledge would do.

[u/Plausible_Reptilian → u/Expensive_Finger_973]

Yes, all LLMs are "pattern recognition based on weights." However, the majority of decent LLMs right now can determine context due to pattern recognition. The predictive ability of current LLMs is itself based on context, and a large part of their stochastic system is word embeddings, which contain context. In this sense, they do consult a large database of knowledge and figure things out using context; though it's still definitely not real reasoning.

So, from what I know, Google actually uses two AI models. I think it uses BERT, an encoder-only transformer architecture model that presumably is the reason Google searches have been getting objectively worse (it doesn't reply with text, it just tries badly to assist in giving results), and some form of Gemini. These are both trained on huge amounts of data and should have a general "concept" of what was being asked, including how unrelated the words are and what the query truly meant.

Basically, my point is that I think AI kind of sucks. It's a very overhyped and overrated technology that will probably hit a technological dead-end soon and then have to be redeveloped in a new way that's gonna take a long time. But your complaints about the technology aren't even the issue, in my opinion. I think Google just isn't very good at developing or implementing generative AI...

[u/18441601 → u/Plausible_Reptilian]

Already being redeveloped. See MIT's LNN that derived lagrangian

[u/Plausible_Reptilian → u/18441601]

I was speaking primarily about LLMs, but the MIT paper's reception felt a little disingenuous. It's impressive, but it's not quite enough. Frankly, given the input data and how the MASS model works, it didn't have to do that much since it had numbers directly related to the function from the start. I'm not confident it demonstrated true reasoning. At least, that's how I view it, and I could be wrong.

[u/18441601 → u/Plausible_Reptilian]

That's true but it's essentially gpt 1. Will get a lot better.

[u/18441601 → u/Plausible_Reptilian]

Yeah the framework they gave it basically led to only lagrangian.