this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
1221 points (99.0% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

31776 readers
4224 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I never heard of the movie and was enjoying the content you created that I thought was supposed to be funny.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Is it considered normal to type out a normal question format when using search engines?

If I were looking for an answer instead of making a funny meme, I'd search "heat movie cast Angelina Jolie" if I didn't feel like putting any effort in.

Then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I've seen someone use their phone to search google "what is 87÷167?" instead of doing "87/167" or like... Opening the calculator....

People do things in different, sometimes weird ways.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah, the way that i would do it is to look up the Wikipedia page for the movie Heat and go to the cast section.

This is how i always look for information and it can actually be to my detriment. Like that time i went to Reddit to ask them what that movie was where time is a currency, and somebody pointed out that i could have just googled "time is money movie" and it would have immediately shown me In Time (2011).

Also, when i want something from an app or website i will consult the alphabetical list or look for a link to click, instead of just using the search bar.

I don't know, somehow it never entered my brain that search bars are smart and can figure out what you meant if you use natural language. Even though they've been programmed that way since before i was born

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It depends on the person in my experience.

For instance, I'll often use a question format, but usually because I'm looking for similar results from a forum, in which I'd expect to find a post with a similar question as the title. This sometimes produces better results than just plain old keywords.

Other times though, I'm just throwing keywords out and adding "" to select the ones I require be included.

But I do know some people who only ever ask in question format no matter the actual query. (e.g. "What is 2+2" instead of just typing "2+2" and getting the calculator dialogue, like you said in your post too.)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

I sometimes ask questions, and sometimes I'm forced to because the original answer somehow misinterpreted my query. I also do searches like you mentioned, but I don't exclusively do one of the other.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago

NGL, I learned some things.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Heat is an excellent movie, and one of my top five. Coincidentally, I just watched it last night. For a film released in 1998, it has aged well. OOP is in the ballpark, too - a young Natalie Portman is in it, not Jolie.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah it's a movie that nails "then suddenly... all hell breaks loose."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

ddg isn't really any better with that exact search query. all 'fashion' related items on the first page.

you get the expected top result (imdb page for the film 'heat', which you have to scroll through to determine your 'answer') by using simply: angelina jolie heat

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We all know how AI has made things worse, but here's some context on how it's outright backwards.

Early search engines had a context problem. To use an example from "Halt and Catch Fire", if you search for "Texas Cowboy", do you mean the guys on horseback driving a herd of cows, or do you mean the football team? If you search for "Dallas Cowboys", should that bias the results towards a different answer? Early, naive search engines gave bad results for cases like that. Spat out whatever keywords happen to hit the most.

Sometimes, it was really bad. In high school, I was showing a history teacher how to use search engines, and he searched for "China golden age". All results were asian porn. I think we were using Yahoo.

AltaVista largely solved the context problem. We joke about its bad results now, but it was one of the better search engines before Google PageRank.

Now we have AI unsolving the problem.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

I was okay with keyword results. If you knew what you were dealing with in the search engine, you could usually find what you were looking for.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

It's not helpful for OOP since they're on iOS, but there's a Firefox extension that works on desktop and Android that hides the AI overview in searches: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/hide-google-ai-overviews/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It also contradicts itself immediately, saying she’s fertile, then immediately saying she’s had her ovaries removed end that she’s reached menopause.

[–] [email protected] 103 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wouldn't removing your ovaries and fallopian tubes make you not "fertile" by definition?

[–] [email protected] 70 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yes, it contradicts itself within the next couple of sentences.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Ashley Judd looks nothing like Angelina Jolie.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

In short: BONK

It probably thought you were Elon Musk.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I think Gemini is "in heat"

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (5 children)

A statistical model predicted that "in heat" with no upper-case H nor quotes, was more likely to refer to the biological condition. Don't get me wrong: I think these things are dumb, but that was a fully predictable result. ('...the movie "Heat"' would probably get you there).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I tried the search myself and the non-AI results that aren't this Bluesky post are pretty useless, but at least they're useless without using two small towns' worth of electricity

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Non-AI results are not going to generally include sites about how something isn't true unless it is a common misconception.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

It's not just any human though, it's an actor, so movie related words should statistically be more likely.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

As a comparison I ran the same all lower case query in bing and got the answer about the movie because asking about a movie is statistically more likely than asking if a human is in heat. Google'a ai is worse than fucking bing, while google's old serach algorith consistently had the right answers.

Google made itself worse by replacing a working system with ai.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Kagi quick answers for comparison gets this tweet, but now it thinks that heat is not the movie kind lol

The AI ouroboros in action

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

It might be the way Bing is tokenizing and/or how far back it's looking to connect things when compared to Google.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

google strips capitalization from searches

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

They love it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

While I get your point of the capital H thing, Google's AI itself decided to put "heat" in quotes all on its own...

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›