Because on Reddit (and here on Lemmy) people use up and downvotes exclusively to rate the quality of a post, not as a tool to show disapproval without having to be able to actually articulate why. I like when social interactions go exactly as intended - like in this case - and don't devolve into two people arguing with silent mobs behind them.
/s for everyone who's as blind to sarcasm as this shitty AI from Google.
Humor IS a quality though. Human voters are able, in aggregate, able to award certain types of humor. Which an LLM is not able to. Which gets recycled with no context, as fact.
The internet would be a vastly different place if sarcasm and in jokes were not regarded as a type of "quality" content.
If you look at the reddit post it's citing, it's from r/shittysuperpowers. A subreddit where you come up with fake shitty super powers is now getting cited as truth by google
It seems so absurd to me this could happen. For the boomers I understand, they grew up in an offline world, but the youth? They are raised on the modern web and smartphones but are often clueless too.
Was it the unsanitized, wild west internet era of the late 90s/early 2000s that hardened the millennials against online bullshitting?
What generation? I'm an elder millenial and I always thought Google Video/Vimeo/Youtube was/is shit for any kind of actual informential content. Music videos, meme videos - sure. Other than that, veeerrry great amount of suss on any info presented. Same goes for 90+% of people of my generation, who know what kind of a jokepool 90's/early 2000's internet was.
Of course it's possible to fix it, they'll just have to change some parameters around and retrain the entire model (which takes a long time). Not an easy fix, that's for sure, but if anyone has the resources to do this, it's Google.
platformers very often include coyote-time to make jumps feel better and to account for imprecise reaction times of players, but that would be cool to see it as a legit mechanic
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens.
So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't.
From my understanding these aren't because that is trained into the ai. I believe it is just looking at a few pages in the moment and summarizing from there, obviously doing a poor job at guessing the relevancy. Somewhat of a fix would be stop taking pages from reddit.