What I find surprising in the debate about AI and hallucinations is that everyone points the fact that’s it’s very dangerous and it will spread misinformation… But the problem is the inability or unwillingness to fact check our information.
Nobody wants to fact check something they saw on meta or tik tok. Nobody will. There is no difference between someone trusting some random influencer and someone trusting an AI. They are both set to fail the same way. Both lack critical thinking.
Instead of being afraid of AI and hallucinations we should be investing massively in teaching the newer generations on fact checking and critical thinking.
IA is a great assistant but only if you can fact check it. If you can’t or won’t then it’s a terrible assistant that will set you up to fail.
To be clear, I also struggle to fact check stuff and I definitely was misinformed many times in the past. Nobody is really immune to that problem. IMO IA doesn’t change much about that problem.
What I find surprising is that so many people (i.e. you) still claim to fact check everything. You don’t. I guarantee it.
Most people don’t read news for a living. You can’t fact check everything you read online. That’s physically impossible. And if you’d be honest to yourself, 95% of headlines you read are just noise and you don’t read any further. Not because you’re too stupid, but because you’re not that interested in Trump’s latest shenanigans or Italy’s economic outlook.
You didn’t even read my entire comment…
Read it entirely and you will see that this aggressive tone wasn’t necessary or justified.
If you have to fact check everything it says, we’re better off as a species boiling the developers in dog shit.
“we’ve added a profoundly energy intensive feature that is wrong most of the time” okay, get in the vat.
get in the vat.
But you shouldn’t have to actively fact check every headline from the BBC because their headline doesn’t actually say what you read.
And there’s very little value to “summarizing messages” if you aren’t actually summarizing messages and the content doesn’t match the summary.
Yes, you should do more critical thinking, but lowering the quality of information of every interaction with the internet very clearly makes things worse.
I have a few friends at the Beeb, albeit not in the newsroom, and they have a blanket ban on ALL GenAI tools that aren’t self-hosted. I would be very surprised if IT at the BBC wasn’t blocking Apple Intelligence outright.
Although reading the article, I can’t really tell if this means content was rewritten on the BBC content side, or a hallucination on-device using BBC content.
Do any of them actually use self hosted tools?
I’m a big fan of self hosted stuff, but I always viewed it as a niche, not something that people other than devs are using in any meaningful capacity (with a big problem being AMD/Nvidia/Apple are all price gouging the hardware for it).
Well read the BBC article on this then: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0elzk24dno
It’s an iPhone ‘feature’ that summarises a bunch of notifications into one. It took a set of BBC headlines and turned them into “Luigi Mangione shoots himself…” They don’t list the article that was being summarised so I don’t know what the original headline was.
LLMs are useful for a great deal of things, particularly offline translation without having to send data to Google’s servers. Sometimes I want to send a long message to friends and family but don’t want to write it in English, Polish, and Hindi.
But who thought using it for news headlines was a good idea?! Given the tens of thousands of news headlines published daily, some of them are statistically guaranteed to be falsely presented by AI.
E: not sure whether people are downvoting because they want Google to have their data, they don’t want people from different cultures talking to one another, or because they want AI-altered news stories.
What are the odds that all these stories about LLMs being terrible, and the crappy publicly available ones, are all just to convince us that they suck so nobody notices when actually good AI gets used?
I remember the very first thing that I have asked ChatGPT.
It was about a kind of shop, and where is the nearest one to me. It gave me a name and a nice description immediately. When I asked further about details, and the street address etc. it went rather vague. In the end it told me to ask Google for specifics.
When I checked Google to confirm, it turned out that this shop did not exist. No shop with that name, no similar one… It was all just made up.
I’m not pretending that the LLMs we get aren’t terrible. Just wondering if there aren’t better AI being used by others more quietly.
No fear. These people are the opposite of “quiet”. They never invent anything without bragging. Even when it turns out as useless later.
Is it even possible for it to know that? It doesn’t have your location, does it?
