this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
241 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

61081 readers
2471 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
241
AI struggles to understand human history and fails miserably when tested (www.earth.com)
submitted 3 days ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

LLMs performed best on questions related to legal systems and social complexity, but they struggled significantly with topics such as discrimination and social mobility.

“The main takeaway from this study is that LLMs, while impressive, still lack the depth of understanding required for advanced history,” said del Rio-Chanona. “They’re great for basic facts, but when it comes to more nuanced, PhD-level historical inquiry, they’re not yet up to the task.”

Among the tested models, GPT-4 Turbo ranked highest with 46% accuracy, while Llama-3.1-8B scored the lowest at 33.6%.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ribboo@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago

50% is decent, if it had any idea of when it actually was correct or not. But 50% is not very good, when the 50% that’s faulty, results in it going of on a long tangent spewing lies. Lies that are incredibly real looking, takes immense knowledge or huge amounts of time to check.

If you’re well versed enough in the subject to spot the lies, you likely wont get much help from AI. And if you aren’t, well, you’re going to be learning a lot of incorrect information. Or spend ridiculous amount of times fact checking.

Works a bit like that for software developing at the moment. AI is incredibly at spewing out code quickly. But the time won by copying it, is lost looking for errors that are extremely well hidden.