You must log in or register to comment.
John Cartwheel would like a word with both of them
No one gives Tina Tumble credit for starting the whole upside-down-then-not movement
We just glossing over the influence of Sammy Somersault? His early work was groundbreaking.
That’s because of that grandstanding cunt, Bobby Barrelroll.
John Cartwheel couldn’t do what he did without AElfred Rüning being the first person to figure out how to run in the early 9th century.
YOU try doing a Cartwheel without Running first.
Sure, ignore the foundational findings of Magnus Skïpping and Toliver Hops. Might as well just say Thomas Walker was useless. What kind of crazy world are we living in that ignores history!
A cousin, second removed from Whil Wilson of the Wheeler family.
The fact that Google suggests adding reddit to the end of the search term there is something.
oh nice catch, i didn’t even see that! yeah it’s catching on, but maybe also their biggest downfall, because there’s a whole lot of shitposting going on there too. I’m always delighted when they return an article from the Onion and present it as a fact
Once humanity finally realises how bad AI is, can we make meme pages shelters for those poor orphan models?
We already know. It’s the most obvious thing in the world. Our overlords just don’t care.
also, it should’ve been obvious before, right? AI has been around since the 1950s
“History is written by the
victorssatirists that fooled the mysterious ‘answers box’”If that ends up our legacy it would be pretty funny
Pff, everyone knows that Sebastian Somersaült paved the way for all that came after him, back in 1062.
Marcus Saint Handstaand turned the world in its head in 1060 and nobody every talks about him it’s always Sebastian this Sebastian that…
Marcus Gainer?
I’m living the prequel to Idiocracy.
We all are
Google should check their sources. I think they are wrong.
Get your shit together, Jimmy Google.
I wish they would just let ai always give these silly answers instead of patching them. Ai is dumb as shit but the bullshit answers are often comedy gold. I need these laughs in my life.
THIS is what “AI” will really be used for. Making bullshit*t.
LLMs are great at their task if you consider they were designed for bullshitting
It IS stealing our jobs!
I’ve always assumed many of these are just editting element text, but mobile that seems more effort than worth. Is there a way to quickly confirm them if not using/having access to the feature?
I did a search and got a similar result:
Tbh I always assumed these AI search results posts were fake. But I just did the search and got the same weird result from TikTok highlighted at the top.
Google really should remove this “feature”
This is a different one. The tiktok one is just ripping the text from tiktok, and google has had this feature for yeaaaars. It’s just embedding the content on the page.
The one from the OP is real too and that’s using this feature called “SearchLabs AI” which is written by AI
Welp, that’s enough for me to assume 80% of these be real lol. Now I feel like I’m missing out, but I don’t think I am.
I got exactly the same thing.
AI has no concept of satire, which in my view is a good thing, as it makes people question just how accurate the information being provided really is.
AI has no concept.
LLMs are nothing more than “spicy autocomplete”.
It’s real
We’re in the shitpost community, even if it’s fake it’s still funny?
Being in the EU, i can’t check myself, but in the answers someone could reproduce it.
Sadly it’s not fake. Just go do the search on google:
This is not the AI result, just an embed from a tiktok post.
Assuming AI Overview does not cache results, they would be generated at search-time for each user and “search-event” independently. Even recreating the same prompt would not guarantee a similar AI Overview,
so there’s no way to confirm.Edit: See my comment below for what I actually meant to say
Multiple people in this thread, including myself, have the exact same tiktok meme quote as results for that prompt.
“AI Overciew” is not the same as randomized image generation.
My bad, I wasn’t precise enough with what I wanted to say. Of course you can confirm (with astronomically high likelihood) that a screenshot of AI Overview is genuine if you get the same result with the same prompt.
What you can’t really do is prove the negative. If someone gets an output then replicating their prompt won’t necessarily give you the same output, for a multitude of reasons. e.g. it might take all other things Google knows about you into account, Google might have tweaked something in the last few minutes, the stochasticity of the model is leading to a different output, etc.
Also funny you bring up image generation, where this actually works too in some cases. For example they used the same prompt with multiple different seeds and if there’s a cluster of very similar output images, you can surmise that an image looking very close to that was in the training set.
I do that with LLM a fair bit. If just using GPTs website for something that should be simple, I often prompt the same thing several times and choose the best iteration as a base.
The best tools are inconsistent!
It was funnier when Mitchell and Webb did it.
And also it was funnier because it wasn’t something people actually trust to give them the correct answer to something, but rather a sketch comedy radio show.
Now do you recon: did freddy mercury eat mercury?
At this point I have von idea if most of these are faked or not but it’s funny and definitely plausible after the pizza glue.
I opened Google for the first time in three months just to try this lmao
It is real and it is glorious.
Schools have said forever that not everything you read online is true and NOW AI companies and people are surprised
Newsgroups and BBSs were full of tomfoolery
Thus, challenging someone became known as “fronting.”
