4 ms·

> what romanian football player won the premier league > The only Romanian football player to have won the English Premier League (as of 2025) is Florin Andone

by pbalau 11mo ago

> what romanian football player won the premier league > The only Romanian football player to have won the English Premier League (as of 2025) is Florin Andone, but wait — actually, that’s incorrect; he never won the league. > ... > No Romanian footballer has ever won the Premier League (as of 2025). Yes, this is what we needed, more "conversational" ChatGPT... Let alone the fact the answer is wrong.

Quarrel 11mo ago
My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. Most of the time, I suspect, people are using it like wikipedia, but with a shortcut to cut through to the real question they want answered; and unfortunately they don't know if it is right or wrong, they just want to be told how bright they were for asking it, and here is the answer. OpenAI then get caught in a revenue maximising hell-hole of garbage. God, I hope I am wrong.
- intended 11mo ago
  We know they are using it like search - there’s a jigsaw paper around this.
- torben-friis 11mo ago
  I’m of two minds about this. The ass licking is dangerous to our already too tight information bubbles, that part is clear. But that aside, I think I prefer a conversational/buddylike interaction to an encyclopedic tone. Intuitively I think it is easier to make the connection that this random buddy might be wrong, rather than thinking the encyclopedia is wrong. Casualness might serve to reduce the tendency to think of the output as actual truth.
  - gizajob 11mo ago
    Sam Altman probably can’t handle any GPT models that don’t ass lick to an extreme degree so they likely get nerfed before they reach the public.
- Wololooo 11mo ago
  Again, if they had anything worth in the pipeline, Sora wouldn't have been a thing...
- xmcqdpt2 11mo ago
  LLMs only really make sense for tasks where verifying the solution (which you have to do!) is significantly easier than solving the problem: translation where you know the target and source languages, agentic coding with automated tests, some forms of drafting or copy editing, etc. General search is not one of those! Sure, the machine can give you its sources but it won't tell you about sources it ignored. And verifying the sources requires reading them, so you don't save any time.
  - kenjackson 11mo ago
    Don’t search engines have the same problem? You don’t get back a list of sites that the engine didn’t prefer for some reason.
    - skywhopper 11mo ago
      With search engine results you can easily see and judge the quality of the sources. With LLMs, even if they link to sources, you can’t be sure they are accurately representing the content. And once your own mind has been primed with the incorrect summary, it’s harder to pull reality out of the sources, even if they’re good (or even relevant — I find LLMs often pick bad/invalid sources to build the summary result).
      - xmcqdpt2 11mo ago
        Exactly. I've gotten much more interested by LLM now that i've accepted I can just look at the final result (code) without having to read any of the justification wall of text, which is generally convincing bullshit. It's like working with a very cheap, extremely fast, dishonest and lazy employee. You can still get them to help you but you have to check them all the time.
  - embedding-shape 11mo ago
    I agree a lot with the first part, the only time I actually feel productive with them is when I can have a short feedback cycle with 100% proof if it's correct or not, as soon as "manual human verification" is needed, things spiral out of control quickly. > Sure, the machine can give you its sources but it won't tell you about sources it ignored. You can prompt for that though, include something like "Include all the sources you came across, and explain why you think it was irrelevant" and unsurprisingly, it'll include those. I've also added a "verify_claim" tool which it is instructed to use for any claims before sharing a final response, checks things inside a brand new context, one call per claim. So far it works great for me with GPT-OSS-120b as a local agent, with access to search tools.
- chud37 11mo ago
  Its very frustating that it can't be relied upon. I was asking gemini this morning about Uncharted 1,2 and 3 if they had a remastered version for the PS5. It said no. Then 5 minutes later I on the PSN store there were the three remastered versions for sale.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- jollyllama 11mo ago
  While I wouldn't strain the analogy, a wolfdog is more capable but people love lapdogs.
- ceejayoz 11mo ago
  > My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. That tracks; it's what's expected of human customer service, too. Call a large company for support and you'll get the same sort of tone.
- underlipton 11mo ago
  People have been using, "It's what the [insert Blazing Saddles clip here] want!" for years to describe platform changes that dumb down features and make it harder to use tools productively. As always, it's a lie; the real reason is, "The new way makes us more money," usually by way of a dark pattern. Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Be overly suspicious and let them walk you back to trust (that's their job).
A_D_E_P_T 11mo ago
Which model did you use? With 5.1 Thinking, I get: "Costel Pantilimon is the Romanian footballer who won the English Premier League. "He did it twice with Manchester City, in the 2011–12 and 2013–14 seasons, earning a winner’s medal as a backup goalkeeper. ([Wikipedia][1]) URLs: * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costel_Pantilimon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costel_Pantilimon] * [https://www.transfermarkt.com/costel-pantilimon/erfolge/spieler/47659 https://www.transfermarkt.com/costel-pantilimon/erfolge/spie...] * [https://thefootballfaithful.com/worst-players-win-premier-league/ https://thefootballfaithful.com/worst-players-win-premier-le... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costel_Pantilimon?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costel_Pantilimon?utm_source=c... "Costel Pantilimon""
- RobinL 11mo ago
  Same: Yes — the Romanian player is Costel Pantilimon. He won the Premier League with Manchester City in the 2011-12 and 2013-14 seasons. If you meant another Romanian player (perhaps one who featured more prominently rather than as a backup), I can check.
- marginalx 11mo ago
  I just asked chatgpt 5.1 auto (not instant) on teams account, and its first repsonse was... I could not find a Romanian football player who has won the Premier League title. If you like, I can check deeper records to verify whether any Romanian has been part of a title-winning squad (even if as a non-regular player) and report back. Then I followed up with an 'ok' and it then found the right player.
  - marginalx 11mo ago
    Just to rule out a random error, I asked the same question two more times in separate chats to gpt 5.1 auto, below are responses... #2: One Romanian footballer who did not win the Premier League but played in it is Dan Petrescu. If you meant actually won the Premier League title (as opposed to just playing), I couldn’t find a Romanian player who is a verified Premier League champion. Would you like me to check more deeply (perhaps look at medal-winners lists) to see if there is a Romanian player who earned a title medal? #3: The Romanian football player who won the Premier League is Costel Pantilimon. He was part of Manchester City when they won the Premier League in 2011-12 and again in 2013-14. Wikipedia +1
0xdeafbeef 11mo ago
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6915c8bd1c80819183a54cd144b55eb2 https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6915c8bd1c80819183a54cd144b55eb2 Damn this is a lot of self correcting
- saaaaaam 11mo ago
  That's complete garbage.
- r_lee 11mo ago
  Lmao what the hell have they made
- djeastm 11mo ago
  This sounds like my inner monologue during a test I didnt study for
- zingababba 11mo ago
  The emojis are the cherry on top of this steaming pile of slop.
oblio 11mo ago
We need to turn this into the new "pelican on bike" LLM test. Let's call it "Florin Andone on Premier League" :-)))
4b11b4 11mo ago
Why is this top comment.. this isn't a question you ask an LLM. But I know, that's how people are using them and is the narrative which is sold to us...
- forgetfulness 11mo ago
  You see people (business people who are enthusiastic about tech, often), claiming that these bots are the new Google and Wikipedia, and that you’re behind the times if you do, what amounts, to looking up information yourself. We’re preaching to the choir by being insistent here that you prompt these things to get a “vibe” about a topic rather than accurate information, but it bears repeating.
  - arghwhat 11mo ago
    They are only the new Google when they are told to process and summarize web searches. When using trained knowledge they're about as reliable as a smart but stubborn uncle. Pretty much only search-specific modes (perplexity, deep research toggles) do that right now...
  - wrsh07 11mo ago
    Out of curiosity, is this a question you think Google is well-suited to answer^? How many Wikipedia pages will you need to open to determine the answer? When folks are frustrated because they see a bizarre question that is an extreme outlier being touted as "model still can't do _" part of it is because you've set the goalposts so far beyond what traditional Google search or Wikipedia are useful for. ^ I spent about five minutes looking for the answer via Google, and the only way I got the answer was their ai summary. Thus, I would still need to confirm the fact.
    - forgetfulness 11mo ago
      Unlike the friendly bot, if I can’t find credible enough sources I’ll stay with an honest “I don’t know”, instead of praising the genius of whoever asked and then making something up.
NuclearPM 11mo ago
Just ask for sources. Problem solved.
javcasas 11mo ago
Oh yeah, yes, baby, burn those tokens, yes! The more you burn the bigger the invoice!
hamburgererror 11mo ago
Meanwhile on duck.ai ChatGPT 4o-mini, 5 mini and OSS 120B gave me wrong answers. Llama 4 Scout completely broke down. Claude Haiku 3.5 and Mistral Small 3 gave the correct answer.
theoldgreybeard 11mo ago
I really only use LLMs for coding and IT related questions. I've had Claude self-correct itself several times about how something might be the more idiomatic way do do something after starting to give me the answer. For example, I'll ask how to set something up in a startup script and I've had it start by giving me strict POSIX syntax then self-correct once it "realizes" that I am using zsh. I find it amusing, but also I wonder what causes the LLM to behave this way.
- rightbyte 11mo ago
  > I find it amusing, but also I wonder what causes the LLM to behave this way. Forum threads etc. should have writers changing their minds upon feedback which might have this effect, maybe.
  - embedding-shape 11mo ago
    Some people are guilty of writing stuff as they go along it as well. You could maybe even say they're more like "thinking out loud", forming the idea and the conclusion as they go along rather than knowing it from the beginning. Then later, when they have some realization, like "thinking out loud isn't entirely accurate, but...", they keep the entire comment as-is rather than continuously iterate on it like a diffusion model would do. So the post becomes like a chronological archive of what the author thought and/or did, rather than just the conclusion.
ta12653421 11mo ago
The best thing is that all this stuff is accounted to your token usage, so they have an adverse incentive :D
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- sebbecai 11mo ago
  For non thinking/agentic models, they must 1-shot the answer. So every token it outputs is part of the response, even if it's wrong. This is why people are getting different results with thinking models -- it's as if you were going to be asked ANY question and need to give the correct answer all at once, full stream-of-consciousness. Yes there are perverse incentives, but I wonder why these sorts of models are available at all tbh.
a3w 11mo ago
Why are you asking abouts facts? Okay, as a benchmark, we can try that. But it probably will never work, unless it does a web or db query.
- usrbinbash 11mo ago
  Okay, so, should I not ask it about facts? Because, one way or another, we will need to do that for LLMs to be useful. Whether the facts are in the training data or the context knowledge (RAG provided), is irrelevant. And besides, we are supposed to trust that these things have "world knowledge" and "emergent capabilities", precisely because their training data contain, well, facts.
estimator7292 11mo ago
"Ah-- that's a classic confusion about football players. Your intuition is almost right-- let me break it down"

by pbalau 11mo ago

Quarrel 11mo ago

My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. Most of the time, I suspect, people are using it like wikipedia, but with a shortcut to cut through to the real question they want answered; and unfortunately they don't know if it is right or wrong, they just want to be told how bright they were for asking it, and here is the answer. OpenAI then get caught in a revenue maximising hell-hole of garbage. God, I hope I am wrong.

intended 11mo ago
We know they are using it like search - there’s a jigsaw paper around this.
torben-friis 11mo ago
I’m of two minds about this. The ass licking is dangerous to our already too tight information bubbles, that part is clear. But that aside, I think I prefer a conversational/buddylike interaction to an encyclopedic tone. Intuitively I think it is easier to make the connection that this random buddy might be wrong, rather than thinking the encyclopedia is wrong. Casualness might serve to reduce the tendency to think of the output as actual truth.
- gizajob 11mo ago
  Sam Altman probably can’t handle any GPT models that don’t ass lick to an extreme degree so they likely get nerfed before they reach the public.
Wololooo 11mo ago
Again, if they had anything worth in the pipeline, Sora wouldn't have been a thing...
xmcqdpt2 11mo ago
LLMs only really make sense for tasks where verifying the solution (which you have to do!) is significantly easier than solving the problem: translation where you know the target and source languages, agentic coding with automated tests, some forms of drafting or copy editing, etc. General search is not one of those! Sure, the machine can give you its sources but it won't tell you about sources it ignored. And verifying the sources requires reading them, so you don't save any time.
- kenjackson 11mo ago
  Don’t search engines have the same problem? You don’t get back a list of sites that the engine didn’t prefer for some reason.
  - skywhopper 11mo ago
    With search engine results you can easily see and judge the quality of the sources. With LLMs, even if they link to sources, you can’t be sure they are accurately representing the content. And once your own mind has been primed with the incorrect summary, it’s harder to pull reality out of the sources, even if they’re good (or even relevant — I find LLMs often pick bad/invalid sources to build the summary result).
    - xmcqdpt2 11mo ago
      Exactly. I've gotten much more interested by LLM now that i've accepted I can just look at the final result (code) without having to read any of the justification wall of text, which is generally convincing bullshit. It's like working with a very cheap, extremely fast, dishonest and lazy employee. You can still get them to help you but you have to check them all the time.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  I agree a lot with the first part, the only time I actually feel productive with them is when I can have a short feedback cycle with 100% proof if it's correct or not, as soon as "manual human verification" is needed, things spiral out of control quickly. > Sure, the machine can give you its sources but it won't tell you about sources it ignored. You can prompt for that though, include something like "Include all the sources you came across, and explain why you think it was irrelevant" and unsurprisingly, it'll include those. I've also added a "verify_claim" tool which it is instructed to use for any claims before sharing a final response, checks things inside a brand new context, one call per claim. So far it works great for me with GPT-OSS-120b as a local agent, with access to search tools.
chud37 11mo ago
Its very frustating that it can't be relied upon. I was asking gemini this morning about Uncharted 1,2 and 3 if they had a remastered version for the PS5. It said no. Then 5 minutes later I on the PSN store there were the three remastered versions for sale.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
jollyllama 11mo ago
While I wouldn't strain the analogy, a wolfdog is more capable but people love lapdogs.
ceejayoz 11mo ago
> My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. That tracks; it's what's expected of human customer service, too. Call a large company for support and you'll get the same sort of tone.
underlipton 11mo ago
People have been using, "It's what the [insert Blazing Saddles clip here] want!" for years to describe platform changes that dumb down features and make it harder to use tools productively. As always, it's a lie; the real reason is, "The new way makes us more money," usually by way of a dark pattern. Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Be overly suspicious and let them walk you back to trust (that's their job).

A_D_E_P_T 11mo ago

Which model did you use? With 5.1 Thinking, I get: "Costel Pantilimon is the Romanian footballer who won the English Premier League. "He did it twice with Manchester City, in the 2011–12 and 2013–14 seasons, earning a winner’s medal as a backup goalkeeper. ([Wikipedia][1]) URLs: * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costel_Pantilimon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costel_Pantilimon] * [https://www.transfermarkt.com/costel-pantilimon/erfolge/spieler/47659 https://www.transfermarkt.com/costel-pantilimon/erfolge/spie...] * [https://thefootballfaithful.com/worst-players-win-premier-league/ https://thefootballfaithful.com/worst-players-win-premier-le... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costel_Pantilimon?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costel_Pantilimon?utm_source=c... "Costel Pantilimon""

RobinL 11mo ago
Same: Yes — the Romanian player is Costel Pantilimon. He won the Premier League with Manchester City in the 2011-12 and 2013-14 seasons. If you meant another Romanian player (perhaps one who featured more prominently rather than as a backup), I can check.
marginalx 11mo ago
I just asked chatgpt 5.1 auto (not instant) on teams account, and its first repsonse was... I could not find a Romanian football player who has won the Premier League title. If you like, I can check deeper records to verify whether any Romanian has been part of a title-winning squad (even if as a non-regular player) and report back. Then I followed up with an 'ok' and it then found the right player.
- marginalx 11mo ago
  Just to rule out a random error, I asked the same question two more times in separate chats to gpt 5.1 auto, below are responses... #2: One Romanian footballer who did not win the Premier League but played in it is Dan Petrescu. If you meant actually won the Premier League title (as opposed to just playing), I couldn’t find a Romanian player who is a verified Premier League champion. Would you like me to check more deeply (perhaps look at medal-winners lists) to see if there is a Romanian player who earned a title medal? #3: The Romanian football player who won the Premier League is Costel Pantilimon. He was part of Manchester City when they won the Premier League in 2011-12 and again in 2013-14. Wikipedia +1

0xdeafbeef 11mo ago

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6915c8bd1c80819183a54cd144b55eb2 https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6915c8bd1c80819183a54cd144b55eb2 Damn this is a lot of self correcting

saaaaaam 11mo ago
That's complete garbage.
r_lee 11mo ago
Lmao what the hell have they made
djeastm 11mo ago
This sounds like my inner monologue during a test I didnt study for
zingababba 11mo ago
The emojis are the cherry on top of this steaming pile of slop.

oblio 11mo ago

We need to turn this into the new "pelican on bike" LLM test. Let's call it "Florin Andone on Premier League" :-)))

4b11b4 11mo ago

Why is this top comment.. this isn't a question you ask an LLM. But I know, that's how people are using them and is the narrative which is sold to us...

forgetfulness 11mo ago
You see people (business people who are enthusiastic about tech, often), claiming that these bots are the new Google and Wikipedia, and that you’re behind the times if you do, what amounts, to looking up information yourself. We’re preaching to the choir by being insistent here that you prompt these things to get a “vibe” about a topic rather than accurate information, but it bears repeating.
- arghwhat 11mo ago
  They are only the new Google when they are told to process and summarize web searches. When using trained knowledge they're about as reliable as a smart but stubborn uncle. Pretty much only search-specific modes (perplexity, deep research toggles) do that right now...
- wrsh07 11mo ago
  Out of curiosity, is this a question you think Google is well-suited to answer^? How many Wikipedia pages will you need to open to determine the answer? When folks are frustrated because they see a bizarre question that is an extreme outlier being touted as "model still can't do _" part of it is because you've set the goalposts so far beyond what traditional Google search or Wikipedia are useful for. ^ I spent about five minutes looking for the answer via Google, and the only way I got the answer was their ai summary. Thus, I would still need to confirm the fact.
  - forgetfulness 11mo ago
    Unlike the friendly bot, if I can’t find credible enough sources I’ll stay with an honest “I don’t know”, instead of praising the genius of whoever asked and then making something up.

NuclearPM 11mo ago

Just ask for sources. Problem solved.

javcasas 11mo ago

Oh yeah, yes, baby, burn those tokens, yes! The more you burn the bigger the invoice!

hamburgererror 11mo ago

Meanwhile on duck.ai ChatGPT 4o-mini, 5 mini and OSS 120B gave me wrong answers. Llama 4 Scout completely broke down. Claude Haiku 3.5 and Mistral Small 3 gave the correct answer.

theoldgreybeard 11mo ago

I really only use LLMs for coding and IT related questions. I've had Claude self-correct itself several times about how something might be the more idiomatic way do do something after starting to give me the answer. For example, I'll ask how to set something up in a startup script and I've had it start by giving me strict POSIX syntax then self-correct once it "realizes" that I am using zsh. I find it amusing, but also I wonder what causes the LLM to behave this way.

rightbyte 11mo ago
> I find it amusing, but also I wonder what causes the LLM to behave this way. Forum threads etc. should have writers changing their minds upon feedback which might have this effect, maybe.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  Some people are guilty of writing stuff as they go along it as well. You could maybe even say they're more like "thinking out loud", forming the idea and the conclusion as they go along rather than knowing it from the beginning. Then later, when they have some realization, like "thinking out loud isn't entirely accurate, but...", they keep the entire comment as-is rather than continuously iterate on it like a diffusion model would do. So the post becomes like a chronological archive of what the author thought and/or did, rather than just the conclusion.

ta12653421 11mo ago

The best thing is that all this stuff is accounted to your token usage, so they have an adverse incentive :D

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
sebbecai 11mo ago
For non thinking/agentic models, they must 1-shot the answer. So every token it outputs is part of the response, even if it's wrong. This is why people are getting different results with thinking models -- it's as if you were going to be asked ANY question and need to give the correct answer all at once, full stream-of-consciousness. Yes there are perverse incentives, but I wonder why these sorts of models are available at all tbh.

a3w 11mo ago

Why are you asking abouts facts? Okay, as a benchmark, we can try that. But it probably will never work, unless it does a web or db query.

usrbinbash 11mo ago
Okay, so, should I not ask it about facts? Because, one way or another, we will need to do that for LLMs to be useful. Whether the facts are in the training data or the context knowledge (RAG provided), is irrelevant. And besides, we are supposed to trust that these things have "world knowledge" and "emergent capabilities", precisely because their training data contain, well, facts.

estimator7292 11mo ago

"Ah-- that's a classic confusion about football players. Your intuition is almost right-- let me break it down"