Gemini made a mistake, when asked if the rubber duck floats, it says (after squeaking comment): "it is a rubber duck, it is made of a material which is less dense than water". Nope... rubber is not less dense (and yes, I checked after noticing, rubber duck is typically made of synthetic vinyl polymer plastic [1] with density of about 1.4 times the density of water, so duck floats because of air-filled cavity inside and not because of material it is made of). So it is correct conceptually, but misses details or cannot really reason based on its factual knowledge.
P.S. I wonder how these kind of flaws end up in promotions. Bard made a mistake about JWST, which at least is much more specific and is farther from common knowledge than this.
This is exactly the failure mode of GPTs that make me worry about the future idiotization of the world.
"Rubber ducks float because they are made of a material less dense than water" both is wrong but sounds reasonable. Call it a "bad grade school teacher" kind of mistake.
Pre-gpt, however, it's not the kind of mistake that would make it to print: people writing about rubber ducks were probably rubber duck experts (or had high school level science knowledge).
Print Is cite-able. Print perpetuates and reinforces itself. Some day someone will write a grade school textbook built with GPTs, that will have this incorrect knowledge, and so on.
But what will become of us when most gateways to knowledge are riddled with bullshit like this?
I think the exact opposite will happen. When I was in school, we were taught never to trust online sources, and students always rolled their eyes at teachers for being behind the times. Meanwhile, the internet slowly filled up with junk and bad information and horrible clickbait and “alternative facts”. GPT hallucinations are just the latest version of unreliable “user generated content”. And it’s going to be everywhere, and indistinguishable from any other content.
People will gladly tell you there’s so much content online and it’s so great that you don’t need college anymore (somewhat true). The internet has more facts, more knowledge, updated more often, than any written source in time. It’s just being lost in a sea of junk. Google won’t be able to keep up at indexing all the meaningless content. They won’t be able to provide meaningful search and filtering against an infinite sea of half truths and trash. And then they’ll realize they shouldn’t try, and the index will become a lot more selective.
Today, no one should trust online information. You should only trust information that genuinely would have editors and proof teams and publishers. I think this will finally swing the pendulum back to the value of publishers and gatekeepers of information.
Yup! With search results being so bad these days, I've actually "regressed" to reading man pages, books and keeping personal notes. I found that I learn more and rely less on magic tools in the process.
> will become of us when most gateways to knowledge are riddled with bullshit like this?
I think we're already here. I asked Google Bard about the rubber ducks, then about empty plastic bottles. Bard apparently has a "fact check" mode that uses Google search.
It rated "The empty water bottle is made of plastic, which has a density lower than water" as accurate, using a Quora response which stated the same thing as a citation. We already have unknowlagable people writing on the internet; if anything these I hope these new AI things and the increased amount of bullshit will teach people to be more skeptical.
(and for what it's worth, ChatGPT 4 accurately answers the same question)
FWIW those bathtub ducks are made of vinyl, not rubber, but more to the point given that it's hollow it's not the density of the material that determines whether it floats. A steel aircraft carrier floats too.
The density of rubber would only be a factor if it was solid, not hollow, and then it'd depend on what kind of rubber. Most rubber is in fact more dense than water (per googling density of rubber).
The fact that it squeaks when squeezed, as well as common knowledge about bath ducks, tells you it's hollow, therefore the density of the material it is made of would be the wrong way to determine it it would float. It's the average density of the entire duck that matters (i.e. weight of duck vs weight of water displaced by duck's volume).
Modern 'rubber ducks' similar to the one in the picture aren't even made out of rubber but plastic. They get called rubber ducks because they were make of rubber when invented in the late 1800s. Amazing what you can learn on Wikipedia.
> Which weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of feathers
< A pound of feathers and a pound of bricks weigh the same. Both are one pound. The difference lies in volume and density: feathers take up more space and are less dense, while bricks are denser and take up less space.
Bard does better but still doesn't "get" it:
< Neither! Both a pound of feathers and a pound of feathers weigh the same, which is exactly one pound. In other words, they have the same mass.
< This is a classic riddle that plays on our expectations and assumptions. We often associate weight with density, so we might initially think that feathers, being lighter and fluffier than other materials, would weigh less than something more compact like metal. However, as long as both piles of feathers are measured to be exactly one pound, they will weigh the same.
At least it recognizes its limitations:
> My reason for mentioning other materials was likely due to my training data, which contains a vast amount of information on various topics, including the concept of weight and density. As a large language model, I sometimes tend to draw on this information even when it is not directly relevant to the current task. In this case, I made the mistake of assuming that comparing feathers to another material would help clarify the point, but it only served to complicate the matter.
I noticed the same thing, and it's relevant to the comparison results of Gemini vs ChatGPT that GPT 3.5 makes the exact same mistake, but GPT 4 correctly explains that the buoyancy is caused by the air inside the ducky.
P.S. I wonder how these kind of flaws end up in promotions. Bard made a mistake about JWST, which at least is much more specific and is farther from common knowledge than this.
1. https://ducksinthewindow.com/rubber-duck-facts/