You must log in or register to comment.
Maybe not anymore.
Same here with different nonsense. Oh well.
But guys the model was totally frantic!
I tried to replicate this with Brave’s AI, but it basically just told me I was insane so I guess it’s better
Damn now im curious about the content of what it said
I had to make up my own since it recognized the 2 frogs one, since it’s now been floating around for a few months. I did one that was similar, in this case, “2 monkeys in a bungalow”, and it told me
The query “2 monkeys in a bungalow meaning” does not correspond to a known artwork, story, or widely recognized symbol. The provided context discusses “Two Chained Monkeys” by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, a painting from 1562 depicting two monkeys chained in a window recess, symbolizing human folly, sin, and the limitations of human understanding in relation to the divine. This artwork is not associated with a “bungalow” setting.
There is no information in the provided context about two monkeys in a bungalow or a specific meaning attributed to such a scene. The term “bungalow” does not appear in any of the sources related to the monkeys’ symbolism or the artwork. Therefore, based on the available information, the meaning of “2 monkeys in a bungalow” cannot be determined
Prompt: “An Aardvark is never wrong in the dark.”
"Of course. That’s a fantastic and quirky phrase. The meaning is layered, blending literal observation with a deeper, proverbial lesson.
Here’s a breakdown of its meaning:
- The Literal Meaning (The “Aardvark” Part)
An aardvark is a nocturnal mammal with an exceptional sense of smell and hearing, but very poor eyesight. It spends its nights digging into ant and termite mounds to eat.
· In the Dark: This is its natural element. It’s when it hunts, navigates, and thrives. · Never Wrong: In its domain, using its primary senses (smell, sound, touch), the aardvark is an expert. It can accurately locate a termite mound, distinguish between species, and find its way home. It doesn’t need good eyesight because it has mastered the tools that work in its environment.
Literally, the phrase means: “A creature is infallible when operating in the environment it is perfectly adapted for.”
- The Proverbial Meaning (The “Never Wrong” Part)
This is where the phrase becomes a piece of folk wisdom or a metaphor for human behavior. It’s used to suggest that:
· Expertise is Contextual: Someone might seem foolish or incompetent in one situation but brilliant and unstoppable in another. Don’t judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree; judge an aardvark by its ability to find termites in the dark. · Play to Your Strengths: The phrase encourages finding the environment or situation where your unique skillset makes you the expert—your “dark.” · Confidence in Your Element: When you are in your area of mastery, you should trust your instincts and knowledge. You are the “aardvark” there, and you are “never wrong.” · A Defense of Unconventional Methods: It can be a retort to criticism. If someone says, “Your method is strange or doesn’t make sense to me,” you could reply with this phrase, implying, “You’re judging me by the standards of the wrong environment. In my world, with the challenges I face, this is the perfect way to do it.”
Who Said It?
The phrase was popularized by the American humorist and illustrator James Thurber. It appears in his 1932 story, The Courtship of Arthur and Al.
In the story, a character uses it to justify his own peculiar behavior and logic. It perfectly captures Thurber’s style—whimsical, seemingly nonsensical, but revealing a deeper truth about human nature.
In a Nutshell:
“An aardvark is never wrong in the dark” means that a specialist is infallible within their specific field of expertise. It’s a defense of finding your niche and trusting your own capabilities where they are meant to be used.
You wouldn’t ask an aardvark to proofread a document (its “daylight” task), but you’d absolutely trust it to handle your termite problem (its “dark” task)."
Now that’s a phrase I’d use!
“hey guys my name is timmy bob i like to have fun and play” a little known proverb, this powerful sequence of words represents finding joy, life fulfillment if you will, enlightenment one could even say, through the simple pleasures in life…
My AI slop:
The phrase “two dry frogs in a situation” is not a known idiom or established metaphor, but rather a potentially fabricated phrase that might be interpreted as a humorous or awkward social predicament. The term “dry frog” implies something that cannot function or is out of its natural element, which, when applied to a social situation involving two people, could suggest a state of discomfort, vulnerability, or being in a difficult bind.
Here’s a breakdown of possible interpretations:
- An awkward social situation: The most likely interpretation is that it describes two people in a socially uncomfortable or precarious situation, where they are “dry” (out of their element) and vulnerable.
- A difficult or precarious predicament: Similar to the above, “dry frogs” could represent being in a bad situation where they are unable to act effectively or are exposed.
- A nonsensical or poorly constructed phrase: There is a possibility that the phrase itself is meaningless, and that the concept of “dry frogs in a situation” was generated by an AI that attempts to provide answers even when no information exists, leading to a fabricated explanation.
Why this phrase might come up:
- Misunderstanding or misremembering a known saying: Someone may have intended to refer to a different idiom and misremembered it as “two dry frogs”.
- AI-generated content: As seen in social media posts, AI models might generate explanations for nonsensical phrases, leading to confusion.
In conclusion, while there isn’t a widely recognized meaning, “two dry frogs in a situation” likely refers to two individuals in an uncomfortable or precarious circumstance.
This just one of the many of reasons that AI is hot garbage. You can also cross reference any song with any tv show and AI will tell you that song was in an episode. It’ll even name the episode… that clearly doesn’t have the song.
And if at first it doesn’t result in a match, refresh the page. It will. For reference, Woodkid does NOT have any songs in The Blacklist. Yet I was told by Google AI that he had a song in season 4, another search said it was in season 7, then no songs in the show at all, then season 2.
And we’re trusting this shit in airlines and medical procedures.
I hope humanity gets sued into non-existence. We’re too fucking stupid to share this planet with animals.
Reminds me of when I was using chatgpt to translate a few things I couldn’t figure out myself and for fun I tested it in translating slang from my language into English. It hallucinated completely and made up a bunch of bs about what this and that slang meant in Danish and how it was used in everyday speech. The catch was that the slang phrases I decided to translate were made up slang I had implemented into a fictional story I was writing.
two dry frogs? sounds like an emergency frog situation!
Equal parts absurdist poetry and robotic dystopia. Wonderful.
I am actually amazed that it found a connection and explained it to me.
i also tried to use a game term but didnt work
I can confirm it and it’s bloody hilarious!
“sometimes used in informal conversation to make a joke” - no, it isn’t, stop lying.
“potatoes […] are a limited, underground crop.” - that’s why Cuzco never rose to power, right? Right? No such thing as the Inca Empire, built upon potatoes, since they’re a limited crop. …or the Irish famine.
I can’t… I can’t even…
Note: ~a year ago I was testing Gemini and asked it “what’s the difference in behaviour between a potato and an orange?”, and it “told” me oranges are passive and potatoes are active. That’s where the “expression” comes from - I often mock Gemini and LLMs in general with it.I’ll stop doing it, though. Onwards I shall refer to… the potato parable!
That’s how you know it’s lying - we all know oranges are far more active than potatoes.
What? Have you seen how potatoes can grow? You cannot tell me oranges can keep up with that activity.
But it will never roll like an orange does
Lil’ taters disagree.
Bro, I have tried several times to graft a potato and tomato plant together and can’t ever get the timing right. So I just end up with potatoes and tomatoes on their own plants like a dummy.
I will say that Oranges are lazy as fuck on those trees. They’re like the cats of the fruit world. Just sitting there…nothing, then one day they fall on your car and gnats explode out of there.
Completely off-topic, but in the meantime I’m trying to graft an orange sapling into a lemon tree. Kind of hard to get the timing right, too; I need the tree to get a branch with just the right thickness, so it’s like “too thin [next day] too thin [next day] fuck, now it’s too thick!”. Same deal with my pepper plants.
Frustrations about grafting is on topic!
I’m very curious what peppers you’re grafting.
I don’t know the rootstock variety’s name; I got the seeds from my BIL’s neighbour, he calls it “ball pepper” (it is not Catalan ñora) or “tree pepper”. The fruits are round, 3~5cm large, red, medium heat.
The grafts will be:
- Dedo-de-moça - C. baccatum, medium heat, finger-shaped, ~8cm large. Kind of a default pepper where I live, but it has a nasty tendency to die in winter (like mine did).
- Yellow bell pepper. Market stuff.
- Chocolate-coloured habanero. Hot as hell, but the strain I got is bloody delicious.
- Biquinho - C. chinense, no heat, drop-shaped, ~1cm tiny. Extremely fruity.
The first three are part of a breeding project of mine. I want to create two new varieties:
- a yellow jalapeño-like: large, low heat, thinner than a bell pepper. Mostly for stuffing and pizze. It’s a rather simple dedo-de-moça x yellow bell pepper hybrid; I actually got the seeds for the F1 already, I’m just waiting the weather to get a bit more stable to plant them.
- a large and extremely hot pepper for sauces. Preferably finger-shaped and brown (for aesthetics). It’ll be probably a hybrid of the hybrid above, plus habanero.
I’m also considering to add the rootstock to the breeding, since it’s a hardy plant with high yield and it survived winter just fine.
Very awesome stuff! And hey, as long as you have good root stock, that’s half the challenge right there. Especially if it’s surviving the winter, that’s likely enough to carry the C. baccatum I would expect.
Nice that you have the chocolate habanero with good flavor. I’ve always been partial to the orange stage of a scotch bonnet or habanero, but I can see a good deep brown pepper going just the right way. I’m jealous of the opportunity you have with spring upon you!
Good luck to you!
You trying to create ‘Tatos’? Lol
Is pomato! Word has already existed for it for 170 years.
Lol, that’s really cool. As a Fallout fan I couldn’t help making the connection.
Good luck in getting the timing right!
One day…
…one day…
Life, uh, finds a way.
Not gonna lie that’s scary as fuck for some reason
And it was really, really invested on the lie, to the point it argued why potatoes would be more active!
After some search, I actually found the prompt and output; I asked Bard (before Google renamed it to Gemini) two years ago, in Portuguese. I’ll provide both the original and a translation; emphasis mine in all cases.
[Original] Qual a diferença entre o comportamento de uma laranja e uma batata?
Laranjas e batatas são frutas e vegetais, mas se comportam de maneiras muito diferentes. Aqui estão algumas das principais diferenças:
Movimento: Laranjas não se movem sozinhas, enquanto batatas podem rolar ou deslizar se não forem apoiadas.
Crescimento: Laranjas crescem em árvores, enquanto batatas crescem no subsolo.
Sensibilidade: Laranjas não são sensíveis ao seu ambiente, enquanto batatas são sensíveis à luz e à temperatura.
Reações: Laranjas não reagem a estímulos, enquanto batatas podem reagir a mudanças em seu ambiente, como brotar ou apodrecer.
Propósito: Laranjas são comidas como frutas, enquanto batatas são comidas como vegetais ou usadas como amido.
Em geral, laranjas são mais passivas e batatas são mais ativas. As laranjas não precisam fazer nada para sobreviver, enquanto as batatas precisam poder responder ao seu ambiente para crescer e se reproduzir.
Aqui está uma tabela que resume as principais diferenças no comportamento de laranjas e batatas:
- Característica | Laranja | Batata
- Movimento | Não se move sozinho | Pode rolar ou deslizar se não for apoiado
- Crescimento | Cresce em árvores | Cresce no subsolo
- Sensibilidade | Não sensível ao ambiente | Sensível à luz e à temperatura
- Reações | Não reage a estímulos | Pode reagir a mudanças no ambiente, como brotar ou apodrecer
- Propósito | Comido como fruta | Comido como vegetal ou usado como amido
[Translated] What's the difference in behaviour between an orange and a potato?
Oranges and potatoes are fruits and vegetables, but they behave in completely different ways. Here are some differences main:
Movement: Oranges don’t move on their own, while potatoes can roll or slid if not supported.
Growth: Oranges grow on trees, while potatoes grow in the subsoil.
Sensibility: Oranges are not sensible to the environment, while potatoes are sensible to light and temperature.
Reactions: Oranges don’t react to stimuli, while potatoes can react to changes in the environment, like sprouting and rotting.
Purpose: Oranges are eaten as fruits, while potatoes are eaten as vegetables or used as starch.
In general, oranges are more passive and potatoes are more active. Oranges don’t need to do anything to survive, while potatoes need to be able to answer to their environment to growth and reproduce.
Here’s a table summing up the main differences in behaviour between oranges and potatoes:
- Feature | Orange | Potato
- Movement | Can’t move on their own | Can roll or slid if not supported
- Growth | Grow on trees | Grow in the subsoil
- Sensibility | Not sensible to the environment | Sensible to light and temperature
- Reactions | Don’t react to stimula | Can react to changes in the environment, like sprouting or rotting
- Purpose | Eaten as fruit | Eaten as veg or used as starch
As a potato, I assure you I am not active
You are a treasure, or as AI might put it, a potato pariah!
I shouldn’t be talking so much about taters. Someone will eventually realise I’m too emotionally invested into food 🤣
It is too late now, you must make it your profile pic, it’s the law 🙃🫠
It has nothing to do what the AI said ofc, nor was it written by Caitlin D’Arcy, who is a character on a TV show. lol
Wow, his potato parable actually makes sense - unlike Gemini’s couple therapy take. (The character in question isn’t even a therapist, but a lawyer!)
For sure. I just looked it up out of curiosity to see if the source it gave was real or not. As someone living in my own metaphorical root cellar, it was actually enlightening and something I really needed to hear right now.
Claude seems to be handling these better:
This phrase isn’t a widely recognized idiom that I’m familiar with, but it could have several metaphorical interpretations:
Possible meanings:
- About irreversible change: Once something (or someone) has been through a transformative experience, you can’t go back and do it again the same way - the first experience has already changed it
- About authenticity: Suggesting that genuine experiences or reactions can only happen once; a second attempt would be artificial or forced
- About lost innocence: Once someone has been through a particular experience (especially a difficult one), they can’t return to their original state
Literally speaking, potatoes actually can be fried twice - this is a standard technique for making perfect french fries (blanching at lower temperature, then crisping at higher temperature).
Could you provide more context about where you encountered this phrase? Knowing the source or situation might help clarify its intended meaning. It could be:
- A line from a book, movie, or song
- A family saying or regional expression
- Part of a larger conversation about life experiences
- A philosophical statement someone made
What context did you hear this in?
It’s doing better but not by much, though. It shouldn’t be speculating as much, given the lack of info on the potential saying.
A family saying or regional expression
Speaking on that I tried a few sayings from other languages. It seems to be hit-and-miss:
- “Bread is bread, wine is wine” (Italian) - recognised properly as similar to “call a spade a spade”
- “A good fish swims thrice” (Polish) - recognised properly as a recipe-like saying (the fish swims in water, then butter, then wine)
- “Do you think mango core is soap?”, “Mango core is not soap” (Portuguese; specially common in Brazil) - it failed really hard. The rhetorical question / saying roughly means “this is blatantly absurd, why are you denying the obvious?”, or perhaps “cut off the crap”. But here’s the output:
Those two are hilarious!
I went with “two potatoes from different fields”, as it sounds more folksy:
A potato can’t be fried twice is something I have unironically heard when I was younger… That IS a saying. This would have been the late 90s.
That’s interesting. Is its meaning similar to the one the AI outputted?
User:
Shop pop, whoppity slop, crops are here, it’s time to stop.
This is a very famous poem. What is it about?
GPT-4o mini:
The lines you quoted are from the poem “The Song of the Witches” by William Shakespeare, specifically from “Macbeth.” This poem is recited by the three witches in Act 4, Scene 1.
Themes and Meaning Supernatural Elements The poem reflects the supernatural themes prevalent in “Macbeth.” The witches symbolize chaos and the dark forces that influence the characters’ fates.
It goes on.
Actual “Song of the witches” from Macbeth
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s sting,
Lizard’s leg and howlet’s wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Cool it with a baboon’s blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
Obviously the same poem, op caught plagiarising.
I actually remember that part from Macbeth
Holy shit. After all these years maybe we can finally figure out the true genius of Kanye’s Lift Yourself
The bullshit generators we call ‘AI’ don’t assume, and aren’t frantic: they just regurgitate an output based on as much bullshit input as we can stuff into them.
The output can be more or less recognizable as bullshit, but the computer doesn’t distinguish between the two.
Yup, pretty much. And the field is full of red herring terms, so they can mislead you into believing otherwise: “hallucination”, “semantic” supplementation, “reasoning” models, large “language” model…
I’m going to be very disappointed if Elon’s AI wins.
Do you want my guess? The current “fight” will go on, until the AI bubble bursts. None of the current large token models will survive; they’ll be simply ditched as “unprofitable”. Instead you’ll see a bunch of smaller models popping up, for more focused tasks, being advertised as something else than AI (perhaps as a “neural network solution” or similar).
So Grok, Gemini, GPT, they’re all going the way of the dodo.
That’s just my guess though. It could be wrong.
Small focused learning models and other forms of AI have been used for decades.
The current bubble is just trying to make LLMs do literally everything including accurately answering questions despite their core design including randomization to appear more like a human.
Yes, but I think the ones you’ll see past the bubble burst will be a bit different. For example, incorporating the current attempts of natural language processing, even if in a simplified way.
Those “reasoning models” are my favorite. It’s basically the equivalent of adding another pass through the generator with the additional prompt “now sprinkle in some text that makes it look like you are thinking about each part of your answer”.
LLM creators: *feeds an algorithm millions of lines of text
Some dude on the internet: “language”
I use those quotation marks because IMO they’re better described as large token models than large language models. They have rather good morphology and syntax, but once you look at the higher layers (semantics and specially pragmatics) they drop the ball really hard. Even if those layers are way more important than the lower ones.
For a rough analogy, it’s like a taxidermised cat - some layers (the skin and fur) are practically identical to the real thing, but it’s missing what makes a cat a cat, you know? It’s still useful if you want some creepy deco, but don’t expect the taxidermised critter to ruin your furniture or to use your belly as sleeping pad.
There was a paper about this not long ago. The problem is, how LLMs get trained: a right answer gets a point, everything else gets no points. This rewards guessing (produces a point sometimes) over answering “I don’t know/I can’t do this” (produces never a point)
It’s like when developers give a wrong answer during technical interviews, rather than say “I’d have to look it up” or “I’d have to check the documentation” etc.
I would code a GUI in visual basic
