7 ms·

I also used Gemini 3 Pro Preview. It finished it 271s = 4m31s. Sadly, the answer was wrong. It also returned 8 "sources", like stackexchange.com, youtube.com,

I also used Gemini 3 Pro Preview. It finished it 271s = 4m31s. Sadly, the answer was wrong. It also returned 8 "sources", like stackexchange.com, youtube.com, mpmath.org, ncert.nic.in, and kangaroo.org.pk, even though I specifically told it not to use websearch. Still a useful tool though. It definitely gets the majority of the insights. Prompt: https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%7B%22ids%22:%5B%221_Uc2_gHGoYEZ8r1DeoPVDhDyg5a2PEBM%22%5D,%22action%22:%22open%22,%22userId%22:%22102648868016956856396%22,%22resourceKeys%22:%7B%7D%7D&usp=sharing https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%7B%22ids%22:%...

JBiserkov 11mo ago
The requested prompt does not exist or you do not have access. If you believe the request is correct, make sure you have first allowed AI Studio access to your Google Drive, and then ask the owner to share the prompt with you.
- junon 11mo ago
  I thought this was a joke at first. It actually needs drive access to run someone else's prompt. Wild.
  - ashdksnndck 11mo ago
    On iOS safari, it just says “Allow access to Google Drive to load this Prompt”. When I run into that UI, my first instinct is that the poster of the link is trying to phish me. That they’ve composed some kind of script that wants to read my Google Drive so it can send info back to them. I’m only going to click “allow” if I trust the sender with my data. IMO, if that’s not what is happening, this is awful product design.
  - dormento 11mo ago
    Imagine the metrics though. "this quarter we've had a 12% increase on people using AI solutions in their google drive".
    - hedora 11mo ago
      Google Drive is one of the bigger offenders when it comes to “metrics-driven user-hostile changes”, in gsuite, and its Google Meet is one of its peers.
      - edoceo 11mo ago
        In The Wire they asked Bunny to "juke the stats" - and he was having none of that.
  - tart-lemonade 11mo ago
    Not really, that's just basic access control. If you've used Colab or Cloud Shell (or even just Google Cloud in general, given the need to explicitly allow the usage of each service), it's not surprising at all.
    - junon 11mo ago
      Why does AI studio need access to my drive in order to run someone else's prompt? It's not a prompt for authentication with my Google account. I'm already signed in. It's prompting for what appears to be full read/write access to my drive account. No thanks.
  - cavisne 11mo ago
    After ChatGPT accidentally indexed everyones shared chats (and had a cache collision in their chat history early on) and Meta build a UI flow that filled a public feed full of super private chats... seems like a good move to use a battle tested permission system.
  - jacquesm 11mo ago
    Not a chance I'll ever click 'ok'. I'd love to be able to opt-out of anything AI related near my google environment.
  - JBiserkov 11mo ago
    To clarify, the message above is what I got after giving it Google Drive access.
pennaMan 11mo ago
> It also returned 8 "sources" well, there's your problem. it behaves like a search summary tool and not like a problem solver if you enable google search
- factsaresacred 11mo ago
  Exactly this - and how chatGPT behaves too. After a few conversations with search enabled you figure this out, but they really ought to make the distinction clearer.
TechDebtDevin 11mo ago
Why is this sad. You should bw rooting for these LLMs to be as bad as possible..
- MaximusLegroom 11mo ago
  Rooting is useless. We should be taking conscious action to reduce the bosses' manipulation of our lives and society. We will not be saved by hoping to sabotage a genuinely useful technology.
  - TechDebtDevin 11mo ago
    How is it useful other than for people making money off token outout. Continue to fry your brain.
    - nh23423fefe 11mo ago
      are you pretending to be confused?
      - ImaLuddite 11mo ago
        I see millions of kids cheating on their schoolwork, many adults substituting reading and thinking to GPUs. There's like 0.001% of people that use them to learn responsibly. You are genuinely a fool.
        antonvs 11mo ago
        Hey, I wrote a long response to your other reply to me, but your comment seems to have been flagged so I can no longer reply there. Since I took the time to write that, I'm posting it here. I'm glad I was able to inspire a new username for you. But aren't you concerned that if you let other people influence you like that, you're frying your brain? Shouldn't everything originate in your own mind? > They don't provide any value except to a very small percentage of the population who safely use them to learn There are many things that only a small percentage of the population benefit from or care about. What do you want to do about that? Ban those things? Post exclamation-filled comments exhorting people not to use them? This comes back to what I said at the end of my previous comment: You might want to make sure you understand what you’re trying to achieve. Do you know the answer to that? > A language model is not the same as a convolution neural network finding anomalies on medical imagining. Why not? Aren't radiologists "frying their brains" by using these instead of examining the images themselves? The last paragraph of your other comment was literally the Luddite argument. (Sorry I can't quote it now.) Do you know how to weave cloth? No? Your brain is fried! The world changes, and I find it more interesting and challenging to change with it, than to fight to maintain some arbitrary status quo. To quote Ghost in the Shell: All things change in a dynamic environment. Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you. For me, it's not about "getting ahead" as you put it. It's about enjoying my work, learning new things. I work in software development because I enjoy it. LLMs have opened up new possibilities for me. In that 5 year future you mentioned, I'm going to have learned a lot of things that someone not using LLMs will not have. As for being dependent on Altman et al., you can easily go out and buy a machine that will allow you to run decent models yourself. A Mac, a Framework desktop, any number of mini PCs with some kind of unified memory. The real dependence is on the training of the models, not running them. And if that becomes less accessible, and new open weight models stop being released, the open weight models we have now won't disappear, and aren't going to get any worse for things like coding or searching the web. > Keep falling for lesswrong bs. Good grief. Lesswrong is one of the most misleadingly named groups around, and their abuse of the word "rational" would be hilarious if it weren't sad. In any case, Yudkowsky advocated being ready to nuke data centers, in a national publication. I'm not particular aware of their position on the utility of AI, because I don't follow any of that. What I'm describing to you is based on my own experience, from the enrichment I've experienced from having used LLMs for the past couple of years. Over time, I suspect that kind of constructive and productive usage will spread to more people.
nomilk 11mo ago
Terrence Tao claims [0] contributions by the public are counter-productive since the energy required to check a contribution outweighs its benefit: > (for) most research projects, it would not help to have input from the general public. In fact, it would just be time-consuming, because error checking Since frontier LLMs make clumsy mistakes, they may fall into this category of 'error-prone' mathematician whose net contributions are actually negative, despite being impressive some of the time. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUkBz-cdB-k&t=2h59m33s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUkBz-cdB-k&t=2h59m33s
- red75prime 11mo ago
  Unlike general public the models can be trained. I mean if you train a member of general public, you've got a specialist, who is no longer a member of general public.
  - jacquesm 11mo ago
    Unlike the general public though, these models have advanced dementia when it comes to learning from corrections, even within a single session. They keep regressing and I haven't found a way to stop that yet. What boggles the mind: we have gone for so long to try to strive for correctness and suddenly being right 70% of the time and wrong the remaining 30% is fine. The parallel with self driving is pretty strong here: solving 70% of the cases is easy, the remaining 30% are hard or maybe even impossible. Statistically speaking these models do better than most humans, most of the time. But they do not do better than all humans, and they can't do it all of the time and when they get it wrong they make such tremendously basic mistakes that you have to wonder how they manage to get things right. Maybe it's true that with an ever increasing model size and more and more (proprietary, the public sources are exhausted by now so private data is the frontier where model owners can still gain an edge) we will reach a point where the models will be right 98% of the time or more but what would be the killer feature for me is an indication of the confidence level of the output. Because no matter whether junk or pearls it all looks the same and that is more dangerous than having nothing at all.
    - 11mo ago

JBiserkov 11mo ago

The requested prompt does not exist or you do not have access. If you believe the request is correct, make sure you have first allowed AI Studio access to your Google Drive, and then ask the owner to share the prompt with you.

junon 11mo ago
I thought this was a joke at first. It actually needs drive access to run someone else's prompt. Wild.
- ashdksnndck 11mo ago
  On iOS safari, it just says “Allow access to Google Drive to load this Prompt”. When I run into that UI, my first instinct is that the poster of the link is trying to phish me. That they’ve composed some kind of script that wants to read my Google Drive so it can send info back to them. I’m only going to click “allow” if I trust the sender with my data. IMO, if that’s not what is happening, this is awful product design.
- dormento 11mo ago
  Imagine the metrics though. "this quarter we've had a 12% increase on people using AI solutions in their google drive".
  - hedora 11mo ago
    Google Drive is one of the bigger offenders when it comes to “metrics-driven user-hostile changes”, in gsuite, and its Google Meet is one of its peers.
    - edoceo 11mo ago
      In The Wire they asked Bunny to "juke the stats" - and he was having none of that.
- tart-lemonade 11mo ago
  Not really, that's just basic access control. If you've used Colab or Cloud Shell (or even just Google Cloud in general, given the need to explicitly allow the usage of each service), it's not surprising at all.
  - junon 11mo ago
    Why does AI studio need access to my drive in order to run someone else's prompt? It's not a prompt for authentication with my Google account. I'm already signed in. It's prompting for what appears to be full read/write access to my drive account. No thanks.
- cavisne 11mo ago
  After ChatGPT accidentally indexed everyones shared chats (and had a cache collision in their chat history early on) and Meta build a UI flow that filled a public feed full of super private chats... seems like a good move to use a battle tested permission system.
- jacquesm 11mo ago
  Not a chance I'll ever click 'ok'. I'd love to be able to opt-out of anything AI related near my google environment.
- JBiserkov 11mo ago
  To clarify, the message above is what I got after giving it Google Drive access.

pennaMan 11mo ago

> It also returned 8 "sources" well, there's your problem. it behaves like a search summary tool and not like a problem solver if you enable google search

factsaresacred 11mo ago
Exactly this - and how chatGPT behaves too. After a few conversations with search enabled you figure this out, but they really ought to make the distinction clearer.

TechDebtDevin 11mo ago

Why is this sad. You should bw rooting for these LLMs to be as bad as possible..

MaximusLegroom 11mo ago
Rooting is useless. We should be taking conscious action to reduce the bosses' manipulation of our lives and society. We will not be saved by hoping to sabotage a genuinely useful technology.
- TechDebtDevin 11mo ago
  How is it useful other than for people making money off token outout. Continue to fry your brain.
  - nh23423fefe 11mo ago
    are you pretending to be confused?
    - ImaLuddite 11mo ago
      I see millions of kids cheating on their schoolwork, many adults substituting reading and thinking to GPUs. There's like 0.001% of people that use them to learn responsibly. You are genuinely a fool.
      - antonvs 11mo ago
        Hey, I wrote a long response to your other reply to me, but your comment seems to have been flagged so I can no longer reply there. Since I took the time to write that, I'm posting it here. I'm glad I was able to inspire a new username for you. But aren't you concerned that if you let other people influence you like that, you're frying your brain? Shouldn't everything originate in your own mind? > They don't provide any value except to a very small percentage of the population who safely use them to learn There are many things that only a small percentage of the population benefit from or care about. What do you want to do about that? Ban those things? Post exclamation-filled comments exhorting people not to use them? This comes back to what I said at the end of my previous comment: You might want to make sure you understand what you’re trying to achieve. Do you know the answer to that? > A language model is not the same as a convolution neural network finding anomalies on medical imagining. Why not? Aren't radiologists "frying their brains" by using these instead of examining the images themselves? The last paragraph of your other comment was literally the Luddite argument. (Sorry I can't quote it now.) Do you know how to weave cloth? No? Your brain is fried! The world changes, and I find it more interesting and challenging to change with it, than to fight to maintain some arbitrary status quo. To quote Ghost in the Shell: All things change in a dynamic environment. Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you. For me, it's not about "getting ahead" as you put it. It's about enjoying my work, learning new things. I work in software development because I enjoy it. LLMs have opened up new possibilities for me. In that 5 year future you mentioned, I'm going to have learned a lot of things that someone not using LLMs will not have. As for being dependent on Altman et al., you can easily go out and buy a machine that will allow you to run decent models yourself. A Mac, a Framework desktop, any number of mini PCs with some kind of unified memory. The real dependence is on the training of the models, not running them. And if that becomes less accessible, and new open weight models stop being released, the open weight models we have now won't disappear, and aren't going to get any worse for things like coding or searching the web. > Keep falling for lesswrong bs. Good grief. Lesswrong is one of the most misleadingly named groups around, and their abuse of the word "rational" would be hilarious if it weren't sad. In any case, Yudkowsky advocated being ready to nuke data centers, in a national publication. I'm not particular aware of their position on the utility of AI, because I don't follow any of that. What I'm describing to you is based on my own experience, from the enrichment I've experienced from having used LLMs for the past couple of years. Over time, I suspect that kind of constructive and productive usage will spread to more people.

nomilk 11mo ago

Terrence Tao claims [0] contributions by the public are counter-productive since the energy required to check a contribution outweighs its benefit: > (for) most research projects, it would not help to have input from the general public. In fact, it would just be time-consuming, because error checking Since frontier LLMs make clumsy mistakes, they may fall into this category of 'error-prone' mathematician whose net contributions are actually negative, despite being impressive some of the time. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUkBz-cdB-k&t=2h59m33s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUkBz-cdB-k&t=2h59m33s

red75prime 11mo ago
Unlike general public the models can be trained. I mean if you train a member of general public, you've got a specialist, who is no longer a member of general public.
- jacquesm 11mo ago
  Unlike the general public though, these models have advanced dementia when it comes to learning from corrections, even within a single session. They keep regressing and I haven't found a way to stop that yet. What boggles the mind: we have gone for so long to try to strive for correctness and suddenly being right 70% of the time and wrong the remaining 30% is fine. The parallel with self driving is pretty strong here: solving 70% of the cases is easy, the remaining 30% are hard or maybe even impossible. Statistically speaking these models do better than most humans, most of the time. But they do not do better than all humans, and they can't do it all of the time and when they get it wrong they make such tremendously basic mistakes that you have to wonder how they manage to get things right. Maybe it's true that with an ever increasing model size and more and more (proprietary, the public sources are exhausted by now so private data is the frontier where model owners can still gain an edge) we will reach a point where the models will be right 98% of the time or more but what would be the killer feature for me is an indication of the confidence level of the output. Because no matter whether junk or pearls it all looks the same and that is more dangerous than having nothing at all.
  - 11mo ago