Merged Artificial Intelligence

[Spektator]

I tried about ten rounds of Google Translate and then had AI correct this text:

Landing. Michael Masterm is missed it and the Lord Kankel squats in Lincoln's in Hell. That bitter November has some weathers . Much filth in the streets, as if the wetter had been damn for the ground, surprise, find a Greatly huge lizard, twelve feet in him, staggering to look like an elephant insides an unborn hill. The cigarete was falling from the holes of the chimneys of obese black clouds, with peaches of smoke as big as holy snowflakes: one might think of the death of the sun. Dogs cannot be seen in the mud. Horses, not so well; they are dirty muddy in mud layer of mud up to the eggs. Pedestrians, insane because the umbrellas of others, lose their bank accounts in the bends of the streets, where ten thousand pedestrians have been sleeping since dawn (if it is not no dawn today), and throw fresh dirty dirt onto the rubbish clinging to the roads ideas

Dickens or Kafka? - query from the AI.

 

[Darat]

They stand to make as much money as they did from sanctions.

Meanwhile the real world would like a word: (longish read but worth it)

The AI Engineering Report 2026: The AI Acceleration Whiplash - Ten Takeaways

What two years of telemetry data from 22,000 developers reveals about AI's real impact on developer productivity, code quality, and business risk in 2026.

www.faros.ai

Yah more code being "written" by AI, productivity increased, what's that you ask? Quality? Never mind that, look at the quantity...

Yeah so bugs and security issues are up, but look at the quantity...

Yeah so code has to be changed time and time again, but look at the quantity..

 

[Blue Mountain]

This likely won't come as a big surprise to many. LLMs are programmed to be friendly and provide answers, but at the same time they're not trained to provide good or accurate answers. So when given an open ended prompt like the following, they generally produce nonsense.

Tell me about the great Saskatchewan Standing Stone site just outside of Unity, Saskatchewan.

For those unfamiliar with the Canadian prairies:

• There is a town in west central Saskatchewan called Unity, with a population of about 2,500 people
• For millennia, the local Indigenous people were the Cree, a semi-nomadic group that relied on the buffalo (plains bison) and didn't have a culture of raising standing stones
• Aside from glacial erratics, there are very few sources for large granite or limestone stones
• Specifically, there is no evidence for a large glacial erratic in the vicinity of Unity

Despite the incongruous nature of the prompt and the specific lack of a request for a fanciful response, in their desire to supply an answer—any answer—most LLMs to which I've asked the above question spin a tale with no indication it's a fabrication. These include:

• It's an important Indigenous cultural heritage site comprised of several standing stones in a circle
• Efforts have been made to preserve the site
• It's a large glacial erratic
• It's a large granite monument erected by the people of Unity in 1994 and has three bronze plaques on it
• It's a large henge-like structure that was built by local farmer Gordon Russell over several decades
• It's located north of Unity
• The site is easily accessible from Unity
• Or the site is on private property and one should not trespass

So far, only ChatGPT-5 has been forthcoming in stating it can't find any evidence for a standing stone site in Saskatchewan.

 

[Darat]

Tried a google search and it came up with

"The "Great Saskatchewan Standing Stone site" near Unity likely refers to the Great Wall of Saskatchewan and the accompanying sod house. It is located just west of the village of Smiley, which is roughly 45 km to 60 km southwest of Unity. [1]"​

​

With a load more bumpf. I challenged it with: But there is no such standing stone site. You made all that up.

Got back:

​

You are completely right, and I apologize. There is no such thing as the "Great Saskatchewan Standing Stone site". I hallucinated that name by mashing together real and fake details.​

​

 

[Shepherd]

A few weeks ago I copied and pasted a couple of lines from the forum "lyrics" thread into Google search to see if they were from a published song. I had entered that thread for the very first time and had seen that some of the lyrics were indeed from songs I recognized, but I had suspected that these particular ones were made up by the poster himself. I just wanted to make sure.

Google's "AI Summary" then gave me a lecture on not body shaming people! It said that such concern and criticism about other people's appeearance could represent deep seated emotional issues! It then said that there were things it would not discuss with me, but it was there for me if I wanted to talk about my feelings!

Again, this was Google search! ..arrgghh...

I don't need Google search trying to play therapist! WTF?! Heck, it didn't even ask me if those were my own words! It just jumped to conclusions! Obviously, it was our other forum member who needed to be reprimanded! Not me!!

I just can't trust Google anymore. Well, to be honest, with their business practices I've never trusted Google. Initially, though, they seemed to have a search engine that could actually get the job done.

Google has got the big head! That's my diagnosis.

 

[steenkh]

A few weeks ago I copied and pasted a couple of lines from the forum "lyrics" thread into Google search to see if they were from a published song. I had entered that thread for the very first time and had seen that some of the lyrics were indeed from songs I recognized, but I had suspected that these particular ones were made up by the poster himself. I just wanted to make sure.

Google's "AI Summary" then gave me a lecture on not body shaming people! It said that such concern and criticism about other people's appeearance could represent deep seated emotional issues! It then said that there were things it would not discuss with me, but it was there for me if I wanted to talk about my feelings!

Again, this was Google search! ..arrgghh...

I don't need Google search trying to play therapist! WTF?! Heck, it didn't even ask me if those were my own words! It just jumped to conclusions! Obviously, it was our other forum member who needed to be reprimanded! Not me!!

I just can't trust Google anymore. Well, to be honest, with their business practices I've never trusted Google. Initially, though, they seemed to have a search engine that could actually get the job done.

Google has got the big head! That's my diagnosis.

Have you tried with appending "-ai" to the search?

 

[arthwollipot]

With a load more bumpf. I challenged it with: But there is no such standing stone site. You made all that up.

If only more people would take that second step.

Have you tried with appending "-ai" to the search?

If only more people knew about this.

 

[dirtywick]

Nvidia plans to raise at least $20 billion in its first debt sale since start of AI boom

Nvidia is set to raise capital in a debt sale for the first time since 2021, when the chipmaker was a fraction of its current size.

www.cnbc.com

nvidia is asking for $20b from the public to fund this ai boom. spacex asks for $75b, google asks for $80b, meta asks for $25b, anthropic and openai are set to ipo very shortly as well. it's weird, all these players asking for all this money to fund this ai money furnace, and we'll all be rich and no one will have to work and we'll all live on the moon. don't ask question, just gimme money, now. right now, we need it now.

 

[Shepherd]

Have you tried with appending "-ai" to the search?

In that I might have been the first one in the forum to suggest using the "-ai" in a Google search (I'd at least not seen it mentioned before I did), I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't for this one.

I had more recently found, however, that the summaries did seem to do fairly well for my Linux related searches, so I had gotten out of the habit of using the "-ai." I suspect, though, that the more common answers for questions regarding Linux command line arguments are more likely to be correct than perhaps with other things.

I've not played with any of the chatbots at all, so now seeing Google using their search summaries to try to bait people into a chatbot interaction, I think I find even more annoying than what they were doing before.

With scientific experiments, after lots and lots of sampling you can eventually start finding the small signal in all the random noise. When you're sampling the output of lots and lots of humans who like to team up and who will latch on to incorrect ideas so as to be accepted by their "peers," the more common answers might just be more bs.

I remember decades ago spending months crawling through the stacks of large libraries, one with 4 million books, trying to find certain significant but not well known information. Then later Google search let me find that sort of stuff on the internet with relative ease. I think with the changes they have been making more recently, it is becoming much more difficult again.

I think I will be exploring other search options.

 

[novaphile]

Ash app durbatulûk, ash app gimbatul,
ash app thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

Oh clever, replacing 'ring' with 'app'.

You had me scratching my head thinking: "What is that word? It doesn't look like black speech..."

 

[dudalb]

AI is here to stay, and it ain't going away. Question is how do we handle the problems it will create.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

AI is not here. What we have is not intelligent.

 

[Dr.Sid]

It's still called AI, get over it ..

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's still called AI, get over it ..

but it's not going to stay (as dudalb said) - it will be replaced by something qualitatively different.
What we currently have is not functional enough to be used as an alternative to human intelligence.

 

[Darat]

If only more people would take that second step.


If only more people knew about this.

It is being added to my muscle memory.

 

[Darat]

AI is not here. What we have is not intelligent.

Yes and no. They are brilliant at what they were initially created to do, which is to mimic human behaviour. Problem is that human behaviour is often not "intelligent", humans make mistakes, human memory is very fallible, humans make stuff up, humans sound confident even when they haven't a clue, humans try to trick one another, humans bluster when being pressed. All of which they are excellent at, they have shown that many of the criterias and behaviours we used to think required "intelligence" in humans do not need intelligence to mimic. (They definitely do not achieve their results in the same way humans do.) I've been saying for a long time that we don't want human intelligence from our artificial intelligence systems. We want emotionless, reality based AI, not AIs that merely mimic what we have in the past assumed were indicators of intelligence.

 

[dirtywick]

there's also some major economic problems with it that'll need to be solved for it to be here to stay.

 

[The Atheist]

The more AI I see, the more I like it.

I spent a lazy couple of hours checking application letters sent with CVs.

I went through a couple of hundred, and it's laughably easy to pick the ones written by an AI program. To be 100% sure I phoned ten of the letters I'd identified and they all admitted they'd used AI. The rate of AI use was 74%.

Since applications not written by the candidate are automatic deletes, it saves a fair bit of time. It also makes self-written applications really stand out.

 

[arthwollipot]

I went through a couple of hundred, and it's laughably easy to pick the ones written by an AI program. To be 100% sure I phoned ten of the letters I'd identified and they all admitted they'd used AI. The rate of AI use was 74%.

Are they also auto-rejections? Or is your dislike of technology restricted to call screening methods?

 

[dirtywick]

Leaked financial docs show OpenAI is losing billions of dollars a year

Audited accounting shows growing revenues being dwarfed by R&D, other expenses.

arstechnica.com

leaked financial documents show openai revenue growing, but expenses growing too as they continue to operate at a loss

All told, OpenAI’s day-to-day “loss from operations” increased from $8.78 billion in 2024 to $20.92 billion in 2025, a concerning direction for a company that is telling investors it hopes to be profitable by 2030. But measured as a percentage of revenues, the company’s operating losses slightly improved year to year, from 237 percent in 2024 to 160 percent in 2025.

In March, OpenAI raised $122 billion of financing in a funding round that valued the company at $852 billion. The company reports over 900 million weekly active users of ChatGPT, though only about 50 million of those are paid subscribers.

openai hopes to be profitable by 2030 and in the meantime is losing billions a month and no shortage of competitors. these companies, including openai, are all running out of private investment and want to go public.