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…
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.
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.
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…
They tariffed places with no people in them.
That bothers me too. Get an actual expert source to verify before you publish shit from randos on Twitter and Reddit.
“several X users claim”, they say for sources. Christ Almighty.
In this case, it’s as simple as “type it into ChatGPT, like the Reddit users did” :/
“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”
“News outlet” is a huge stretch. It’s a crypto currency blog pretending to be news.
But that doesn’t confirm or deny that Trumps formula came from ChatGPT, they could both be drawing from some other source.
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.
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.
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.
May I have some sauce, please?
Appears to be that calculation minimum of 10%
Am I still going crazy or what, trade deficit =/= tariffs right??
No you’re not going crazy, you just understand economics and trade more than the President of the USA.
Thanks, much appreciated.
Because the article is likely just more GenAI vomit, and an LLM doesn’t have any degree of deductive reasoning ability to begin with.
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.
Are you annoyed that they didn’t try to replicate it, or that they’re disparaging LLMs?
That they didn’t try to replicate it.