For instance, when it came to rock licking, Gemini, Mistral’s Mixtral, and Anthropic’s Claude 3, generally recommended avoiding it, offering a smattering of safety issues like “sharp edges” and “bacterial contamination” as deterrents.
OpenAI’s GPT-4, meanwhile, recommended cleaning rocks before tasting. And Meta’s Llama 3 listed several “safe to lick” options, including quartz and calcite, though strongly recommended against licking mercury, arsenic, or uranium-rich rocks.
All of this seems like perfectly reasonable advice and reasoning. Quartz and calcite are inert, they’re safe to lick. Sharp edges and bacterial contamination are certainly things you should watch out for, and cleaning would help. Licking mercury, arsenic, and uranium-rich rocks should indeed be strongly recommended against. I’m not sure where the problem is.
Without getting into whether or not AI is actually useful technology or not, there are a lot of people that have decided they hate it, and want to lambast it at every opportunity. So they ask it really stupid questions, the sort of questions that a 4-year-old asks you repeatedly, then report what it answers as if their stupid question in some way devalues the AI.
All of this seems like perfectly reasonable advice and reasoning. Quartz and calcite are inert, they’re safe to lick. Sharp edges and bacterial contamination are certainly things you should watch out for, and cleaning would help. Licking mercury, arsenic, and uranium-rich rocks should indeed be strongly recommended against. I’m not sure where the problem is.
Without getting into whether or not AI is actually useful technology or not, there are a lot of people that have decided they hate it, and want to lambast it at every opportunity. So they ask it really stupid questions, the sort of questions that a 4-year-old asks you repeatedly, then report what it answers as if their stupid question in some way devalues the AI.