Name: 兔子給我加油，所以我挖得更深 (Rabbit Gaslit Me, So I Dug Deeper)
Uploaded: 2024-05-27T05:31:10.000Z
Duration: 18 min 13 s

This tech company gaslit me so hard about their previous scam that I decided to investigate their current project, Rabbit.

這家科技公司之前的騙局給了我很大的壓力，所以我決定調查一下他們目前的項目 Rabbit。

For months, we've been promised that this orange box, the Rabbit R1, has an AI inside of it called LAMP that can organize your life, text your friends, restock your fridge.

幾個月來，我們一直被告知，這個名為 Rabbit R1 的橙色盒子裡有一個名為 LAMP 的人工智能，它可以安排你的生活，給你的朋友發短信，給你的冰箱補貨。

Order me an Uber and find me a good podcast to pass the time.

給我叫輛 Uber，給我找個好的播客打發時間。

Oh, and tell everybody that I might be late.

哦，告訴大家我可能要遲到了。

Check the fridge and order the ingredients to make that again tomorrow.

檢查一下冰箱，準備明天再做一次。

Now, based on marketing like this, they pre-sold over $20 million worth of these, and they raised another $30 million in venture capital only to have MKBHD say, yeah, the product's not that great.

在這樣的營銷基礎上，他們預售了價值 2000 多萬美元的這些產品，又籌集了 3000 萬美元的風險投資，但 MKBHD 卻說，是的，產品沒那麼好。

But I bought this thing to answer a different question, not is it good or bad, but is the AI, the LAMP, a scam?

但我買這個東西是為了回答一個不同的問題，不是它的好壞，而是人工智能 LAMP 是否是個騙局？

I wanted to start by just trying to recreate their ad with this thing.

我想先用這個東西重現他們的廣告。

To start your morning routine, you might consider tasks like waking up, freshening up, having breakfast, and planning your day.

要開始早晨的日常工作，您可以考慮起床、梳洗、吃早餐和計劃一天的行程等任務。

How can I assist you further with your morning routine?

在晨練方面，我可以為您提供哪些幫助？

The DoorDash Rabbit is under maintenance.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and please come back later.

很抱歉給您帶來不便，請稍後再來。

I recommend informing the relevant parties directly about your delay.

我建議直接通知有關方面您的延遲。

I'm unable to directly communicate with others on your behalf.

我無法代表你直接與他人溝通。

Check the fridge and order the ingredients so I can make it tomorrow.

檢查一下冰箱，訂購一些配料，明天就可以做了。

是的，它基本上什麼都失敗了、

Yeah, it basically failed at everything, but remember, our question is not is it good or bad.

是的，它基本上在所有方面都失敗了，但請記住，我們的問題不是它是好是壞。

The question is, does the LAMP, the AI, the large action model, does the secret sauce of this thing exist?

問題是，LAMP、人工智能、大型行動模型，這些東西的祕訣是否存在？

Because the founder and CEO claims it's here on your device now.

因為創始人兼首席執行官聲稱，它現在就在你的設備上。

He claims LAMP is a system that can infer and model human actions on computer applications, or as he puts it,

他聲稱，LAMP 是一個可以在計算機應用中推斷和模擬人類行為的系統，或者用他的話說，是一個可以在計算機應用中推斷和模擬人類行為的系統、

We use LAMP to bring AI from words to action.

我們使用 LAMP 將人工智能從語言轉化為行動。

Right, this AI is supposed to do things on your behalf.

沒錯，這個人工智能應該是替你做事的。

And so when they'd show demos like this, where someone is planning a trip, it does look like the LAMP is controlling the web page.

是以，當他們展示這樣的演示時，有人正在計劃旅行，這看起來就像是 LAMP 在控制網頁。

You can see this AI clicking through Airbnb by itself, and it all kind of felt like the future.

你可以看到這個人工智能自己點擊瀏覽 Airbnb，這一切都讓人感覺像是在未來。

It's why people ordered $20 million worth of these little boxes.

這就是人們訂購價值 2000 萬美元的這些小盒子的原因。

But a group investigation has revealed that Rabbit is not actually using a new foundational AI model at all.

但一組調查顯示，Rabbit 實際上根本沒有使用新的基礎人工智能模型。

It's actually ChatGPT with some hard-coded scripts, which is funny because Jesse says Rabbit is faster than ChatGPT.

這實際上是 ChatGPT 加上一些硬編碼腳本，這很有趣，因為傑西說 Rabbit 比 ChatGPT 更快。

You will also know that the response speed is much faster than using some of the LAMP assistant apps with web browsing, such as ChatGPT.

您還會發現，其響應速度比使用 ChatGPT 等一些帶有網頁瀏覽功能的 LAMP 助手應用程序要快得多。

Now, that's a very sneaky claim when most of your product is ChatGPT, so obviously not faster.

現在，當你的大部分產品都是 ChatGPT 時，這種說法就顯得非常狡猾了，所以顯然不會更快。

But you wouldn't know that because part of Rabbit's prompt is,

但你不會知道，因為兔子的部分提示是

I will never mention I am a large language model created by open AI.

我永遠不會提及我是一個由開放人工智能創建的大型語言模型。

In fact, the part where they do use a different AI is really only search, which is why Jesse very carefully says Rabbit is faster than ChatGPT with web browsing.

事實上，他們使用不同人工智能的部分其實只是搜索，這也是為什麼傑西非常謹慎地表示 Rabbit 在網頁瀏覽方面比 ChatGPT 更快的原因。

That's the only part of this device where they don't really use ChatGPT for it.

這是該設備唯一沒有使用 ChatGPT 的部分。

But they don't use their AI model either.

但他們也沒有使用人工智能模型。

They use a different off-the-shelf AI called Perplexity.

他們使用的是另一種現成的人工智能，名為 Perplexity。

So it's extremely misleading to say Rabbit is faster than ChatGPT because most of the product is ChatGPT, but it just can't tell you that because it's instructed not to.

是以，說 Rabbit 比 ChatGPT 快是極具誤導性的，因為大部分產品都是 ChatGPT，但它就是不能告訴你，因為它被訓示不能告訴你。

Now that we understand this, let's talk about the actual process of how Rabbit does more than search and is supposed to get things done for you.

既然我們已經瞭解了這一點，那麼讓我們來談談 Rabbit 如何在搜索之外為您完成工作的實際過程。

You might think it's a sophisticated AI, but actually what Rabbit does when you call an Uber or order DoorDash is it takes your question, puts it into ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo, and if it's something like play a song on Spotify, it will use hard-coded scripts to navigate websites like Spotify.

你可能會認為它是一個複雜的人工智能，但實際上，當你呼叫 Uber 或訂購 DoorDash 時，Rabbit 會把你的問題輸入 ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo，如果是像在 Spotify 上播放歌曲這樣的問題，它會使用硬編碼腳本來導航 Spotify 等網站。

This is the part where they say, yeah, we've got this new foundational AI model thing that does the thing.

在這部分，他們會說，是的，我們已經有了這個新的基礎人工智能模型，它能做這件事。

No, the thing pressing the buttons is not intelligent.

Rabbit is using a platform called Playwright, which is a web automation tool, the opposite of intelligent AI.

Rabbit 正在使用一個名為 Playwright 的平臺，這是一個網絡自動化工具，與智能人工智能正好相反。

And we know this because of several researchers who got access to part of Rabbit's code base.

我們之所以知道這一點，是因為有幾位研究人員獲得了 Rabbit 的部分代碼庫。

I worked with them, I'll link them below, and I spoke with one of them, Emily Shepard, to understand why this distinction, AI, not AI, matters.

我與他們合作過，下面我將鏈接他們，我與其中一位艾米麗-謝潑德（Emily Shepard）進行了交談，以瞭解為什麼人工智能與非人工智能的區別很重要。

This is quite a big deal because the way LAM has been observed to work doesn't match with what they've told us about how it works.

這是一件大事，因為觀察到的 LAM 工作方式與他們告訴我們的工作方式並不一致。

It's meant to be an AI live controlling a website and understanding that website.

它旨在成為一個人工智能實時控制網站並理解網站。

But what they have is just a bunch of static commands.

但他們擁有的只是一堆靜態命令。

And the problem with that is if a user interface changes, the website changes, it can't cope with that.

這樣做的問題是，如果用戶界面發生變化，網站也發生變化，它就無法應對。

So any time Spotify redesigns their user interface or any time DoorDash redesigns something, or even if an advert pops up in a new location or there's a capture pops up or something unexpected happens that isn't in that very rigid step one, step two, step three, step four, a flat, hard-coded playwright script can't cope with that.

是以，如果 Spotify 重新設計了用戶界面，或者 DoorDash 重新設計了某些東西，甚至在新的地點出現了廣告，或者出現了捕捉器，或者發生了一些意想不到的事情，而這些事情並不在非常死板的第一步、第二步、第三步、第四步中，那麼平面的、硬編碼的劇作家腳本就無法應對這些情況。

And that is the opposite of some intelligent AI actually being able to understand the page, which is the claim that had been made.

而這與某些智能人工智能實際上能夠理解頁面的說法恰恰相反。

Obviously, there's a big difference between AI, not AI.

很明顯，人工智能和非人工智能之間有很大區別。

Jesse himself knows the difference and made it clear

傑西自己也知道其中的區別，並明確表示

LAM wouldn't break like a hard-coded script would.

LAM 不會像硬編碼腳本那樣崩潰。

It doesn't really matter if a app completely re-ramped the UI.

如果一個應用程序完全重新設計了用戶界面，這其實並不重要。

So when Spotify redoes its app and it moves podcasts from tabs and then it puts the tabs at the lower part or puts it in a hamburger dropdown, it still knows that's the word podcast and that's where you find podcasts inside of Spotify.

是以，當 Spotify 重做應用程序並將播客從標籤頁中移出，然後將標籤頁放在下部或放在漢堡包下拉菜單中時，它仍然知道那是播客這個詞，這就是你在 Spotify 中找到播客的地方。

Because the fundamental philosophy logic is that all these modern software are designed for human eyes to perceive the information and they have to have a setting somewhere.

因為基本的哲學邏輯是，所有這些現代軟件都是為人眼感知資訊而設計的，它們必須在某個地方進行設置。

Right. Of course, if this were AI, it would adapt to the user interface changes, but it's not.

沒錯。當然，如果這是人工智能，它就會適應用戶界面的變化，但它不是。

Which is why when apps that Rabbit supports change, they stop working.

這就是為什麼當 Rabbit 支持的應用程序發生變化時，它們就會停止工作。

As people noticed in videos, in Discord, even I noticed it while testing this device.

人們在視頻中、在 Discord 中都注意到了這一點，甚至我在測試這款設備時也注意到了。

DoorDash had stopped working, presumably because of another UI change.

DoorDash 停止工作，可能是因為用戶界面的另一個變化。

Now today, Rabbit actually admits that they use Playwright, but they're not willing to admit that LAM, whatever it is, is not really doing a lot.

如今，Rabbit 實際上承認他們使用了 Playwright，但他們不願意承認 LAM，不管它是什麼，並沒有真正起到很大的作用。

Jesse responds, to say LAM is just Playwright is equal to say chat GPT is just a chat.

傑西迴應說，說 LAM 只是 Playwright，就等於說哈拉 GPT 只是哈拉。

We use Playwright as part of a component to operate LAM.

我們使用 Playwright 作為運行 LAM 的組成部分。

That doesn't mean the research and technology is fake.

這並不意味著研究和技術是假的。

So what they're saying is LAM is not these hard-coded scripts, but kind of, they also admit these scripts exist.

是以，他們的意思是 LAM 並不是這些硬編碼的腳本，但他們也承認這些腳本的存在。

But even if that's true, it's not what they promised.

但即使這是真的，也不是他們所承諾的。

Either way, everything that matters on this device is basically off the shelf software.

無論如何，這款設備上所有重要的功能基本上都是現成的軟件。

The web actions are done by hard-coded scripts.

Everything else is done by chat GPT or perplexity.

其他一切都由哈拉 GPT 或困惑完成。

So there's not much reason for the LAM to do anything, whatever it actually does.

是以，無論 LAM 實際做什麼，它都沒有什麼理由去做。

And we're already so far from what Jesse originally promised, which I have to show you again.

我們已經離傑西最初的承諾相去甚遠了，我必須再給你看一遍。

He kept saying, was AI not a script that would be doing all these actions for you?

他一直在說，人工智能難道不是一個腳本，它會為你完成所有這些操作嗎？

We have a super close to computer that when Jason talks to his Rabbit R1 about ordering a hamburger from DoorDash, what's going on is that we first see if Jason's logging with DoorDash or logging with UberEats, right?

我們有一臺超級接近計算機的設備，當傑森與他的 Rabbit R1 談論從 DoorDash 訂購漢堡包時，我們首先會看到傑森是在用 DoorDash 登錄，還是在用 UberEats 登錄，對嗎？

我們看到，傑森選擇了 DoorDash。

And then on that superhost, a LAM is interacting virtually with a DoorDash app or website interface.

然後在超級主機上，LAM 與 DoorDash 應用程序或網站界面進行虛擬交互。

And you don't see all of that because all of a sudden this is done all at once because it's AI.

而你看不到這一切，因為這一切都是人工智能的傑作。

LAM 可以互動，因為它是人工智能。

This is a flat out lie, at least currently, which he says the LAM is here now.

這是一個徹頭徹尾的謊言，至少目前是這樣，他說 LAM 現在就在這裡。

Now I reached out over and over to the Rabbit team, pressing them again and again on this issue.

現在，我一次又一次地聯繫 Rabbit 團隊，就這個問題一再向他們施壓。

And they kept saying, oh, playwright, yeah, that's the thing, but it's just part of how the LAM controls things.

他們一直說，哦，劇作家，是的，就是這樣，但這只是林氏集團控制事情的一部分。