this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
628 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

69298 readers
4174 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 news or articles.
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  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
 

Artificial Generalized Incompetence

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 124 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

How about the outlet checks and finds out?

I did, and I couldn’t get low-temperature Gemini or a local LLM to replicate it, and not all the tariffs seem to be based on the trade deficit ratio, though some suspiciously are.

Sorry, but this is a button of mine, outlets that ask stupidly easy to verify questions but dont even try. No, just cite people on Reddit and Twitter…

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 33 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

though some suspiciously are.

Some? A huge portion are. Numerous others have replicated it with visual proof. I agree that the news sites should be verifying it, but NYT did and also documented their proof.

[–] TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Fogle@lemmy.ca 24 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Appears to be that calculation minimum of 10%

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Am I still going crazy or what, trade deficit =/= tariffs right??

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No you're not going crazy, you just understand economics and trade more than the President of the USA.

[–] TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Thanks, much appreciated.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

That bothers me too. Get an actual expert source to verify before you publish shit from randos on Twitter and Reddit.

[–] drislands@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

"several X users claim", they say for sources. Christ Almighty.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

In this case, it's as simple as "type it into ChatGPT, like the Reddit users did" :/

[–] MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"these lazy fucks in the government are using ai to come up with policy"

Also news outlet

"I am too lazy to do the laziest thing I'm angry about, even though it's my literal job"

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But that doesn't confirm or deny that Trumps formula came from ChatGPT, they could both be drawing from some other source.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You can generally toggle LLM "grounding" features, aka inserting web searches into their context.

Modern LLMs have a information "cutoff" of a few months ago, at the latest, so the base models will have zero awareness of this formula.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 3 points 3 weeks ago

Unless the formula came from something that already existed that both Trumps people and these models are referencing to come up with the same number.

[–] Grostleton@lemm.ee 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Because the article is likely just more GenAI vomit, and an LLM doesn't have any degree of deductive reasoning ability to begin with.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

TBH it's probably human written.

I used to write small articles for a tech news outlet on the side (HardOCP), and the entire site went under well before the AI boom because no one can compete with conveyer belts of of thoughtless SEO garbage, especially when Google promotes it.

Point being, this was a problem well before the rise of LLMs.

[–] reiterationstation@lemm.ee 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They tariffed places with no people in them.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Are you annoyed that they didn't try to replicate it, or that they're disparaging LLMs?

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

That they didn’t try to replicate it.