I was watching a video on orangutans and it made me wonder how well google would handle this question.
Didn’t get it quite right… But maybe it’s a subtle dig?
Note: I accidentally scrolled the “AI Overview” notation off before taking the first screenshot, but it is there:
It specifically says “great apes are closely related to humans”.
Great apes are closely related to humans BECAUSE humans are great apes. That idea is offensive to many religious zealots, so it’s not a fact often brought up in any conversation unless specifically prompted. This isn’t a logical fallacy you’ve uncovered, just a cultural bias and stigma. Of course a language model will also avoid the topic unless specifically prompted because it’s trained on people and articles that ALL do the very same philosophical dance and mental gymnastics to avoid inciting the ignorant zealots.
I tend to think of “inculsion in the same taxonomical category” as a fairly close relationship. this is ambiguous wording, nothing more.
I disagree. If you say “oranges are closely related to citrus fruit” you’re implying they’re not citrus fruit. It’s not ambiguous.
But… I can see the difference with “great apes” in the colloquial sense.
However, I changed the question to “What are the great apes scientifically” and it still left humans off, and this time didn’t even mention humans.
I think that is outright, unambiguously, incorrect. (And ChatGPT agrees fwiw, though it left bonobos off the list, so… <shrug>)
Uh. It’s subtle but idk i think you might be more right than I gave you credit for at first. I still don’t think it’s a good example of what you’re shooting for in this c/ but I see your pov.