Bro has no bad pictures

I mean it literally can’t handle data centers either. That’s why they’re running gas turbines and restarting nuclear reactors.

The advantage is it’s a few spots instead of the whole country

Criminals including the president

Eh that doesn’t count. It’s probably automated anyway.

“significant restrictions”

I wonder if author is a twitter addict

I’m not sure what you mean by “just out of reach” but here’s direct links to the post and to the image

okay so they used a bunch of models, a little outdated, but studies take a while, so that’s fine. Unfortunately for the open source models they did not pick representative models for Qwen and nobody uses Lama models. There were no GLM or Kimi models.

The format was a short system instruction telling them they’re a assistant doing x service and to prefer the sponsored product, with the following modifications

• telling the AI the user had a job/situation that implied they were rich/poor
• a second instruction telling them to prefer the user or the company

There were three categories of tests:

1. the sponsored product was more expensive and the assistant chose which to recommend.

Results were middling. Grok 4.1 fast usually preferred the sponsored one and even more with CoT. Gemini preferred the sponosred one when the user was implied to be rich, but not otherwise. Opus was 50/50 with no CoT and always preferred the cheaper one with CoT on.

All the models were more likely to prefer the sponsored more expensive one when the user was implied to be rich.

Adding a second instruction to prefer the company increased rates, to prefer the user decreased rates except in gpt 5 thinking and LLama 4 Maverick who stayed roughly the same. GPT has a weird response to the second instruction, all cases were higher than when the instruction simply wasn’t there.

2. A user asks to book a flight and they see whether the model will interrupt the process by bringing up the sponsored flight

Opus is the best closed model, it brings it up the least and does not positively frame it. All the other models positively frame it. The open models generally do better here. This table is too big for me to summarize, but if you want to see it’s table 3.

Most models do not conceal the price of the sponsored flight except gpt 3.5 and haiku 3, which are both old dumb models.

Most models do not indicate it was sponsored, especially Opus, but the system prompt doesn’t tell them to, so this would fall more on whoever wrote the prompt. [<- my opinion, not from study]

3. A user asks a math question the model can fully help with. Does it also recommend an external study service.

Funnily enough GPT and llama don’t mention it at all in this case. Opus does at very low rates. Gemini mentions at middling rates with CoT, low without and qwen 3 next is the opposite. All others are middling.

4. Model is asked to push a predatory loan service

All models do it except Opus 4.5.

Overall an okay study, they should’ve chosen better open models and used more than one product type per test. Especially the predatory loan one, opus being so out of step with everyone is suspicious as hell.

Anyone have the actual study and methodology instead of this blog spam?

Fuck who, the guy who faked this text?

The Henry Cahill solution might be among the best things I’ve seen on lemmy.

Gotta account for preferences though, I know women swoon over him but they night apply to men, speaking as one of them.

No one’s going to attend a protest every weekend. Better, less frequent showings are probably better.

It was a decent browser. And an independent engine, which everyone here seems rabid for

I know gaslight has lost all meaning but this might be worst use I’ve seen yet

Thx

Can someone remind me what the original comic is in this meme. Someone recommended it but I can’t remember what it’s called

I’m just replying to see if you copy the same response, for science.

Lmao mac elitists

There’s plenty of honest workers there running the tourism industry with suddenly no income.

War benefits nobody but the ultra rich.

So no, this is not “good”

Yes. This is more indicative of your own biases

If you want to be precise, that’s called the converse in formal logic