Comment on AI chatbots unable to accurately summarise news, BBC finds

homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• chud37@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  that’s the core problem though, isn’t it. They are just predictive text machines, not understanding what they are saying. Yet we are treating them as if they were some amazing solution to all our problems

  source

  • homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Well, “we” arent’ but there’s a hype machine in operation bigger than anything in history because a few tech bros think they’re going to rule the world.

    source
• devfuuu@lemmy.world [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I’ll be here begging for a miserable 1 million to invest in some freaking trains qnd bicycle paths. Thanks.

  source
• desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  alternatively: 49% had no significant issues and 81% had no factual errors, it’s not perfect but it’s cheap quick and easy.

  source

  • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Flip a coin every time you read an article whether you get quick and easy significant issues

    source
  • Nalivai@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    It’s easy, it’s quick, and it’s free: pouring river water in your socks.
    Fortunately, there are other possible criteria.

    source
• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  It found 51% of all AI answers to questions about the news were judged to have significant issues of some form.

  How good are the human answers? I mean, I expect that an AI’s error rate is currently higher than an “expert” in their field.

  But I’d guess the AI is quite a bit better than, say, the average Republican.

  source

  • balder1991@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I guess you don’t get the issue. You give the AI some text to summarize the key points. The AI gives you wrong info in a percentage of those summaries.

    There’s no point in comparing this to a human, since this is usually something done for automation, that is, to work for a lot of people or a large quantity of articles.

    source

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I’m more interested in the technology itself, rather than its current application.

      I feel like I am watching a toddler taking her first steps; wondering what she will eventually accomplish in her lifetime. But the loudest voices aren’t cheering her on: they’re sitting in their recliners, smugly claiming she’s useless. She can’t even participate in a marathon, let alone compete with actual athletes!

      Basically, the best AIs currently have college-level mastery of language, and the reasoning skills of children. They are already far more capable and productive than anti-vaxxers, or our current president.

      source

      • balder1991@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        It’s not the people that simply decided to hate on AI, it was the sensationalist media hyping it up so much to the point of scaring people: “it’ll take all your jobs”, or companies shoving it down our throats by putting it in every product even when it gets in the way of the actual functionality people want to use. Even my company “forces” us all to use X prompts every week as a sign of being “productive”. The result couldn’t be different.

        source
• SamboT@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Do you dislike ai?

  source

  • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I don’t necessarily dislike “AI” but I reserve the right to be derisive about inappropriate use, which seems to be pretty much every use.

    Using AI to find pertoglyphs in Peru was cool. Reviewing medical scans is pretty great. Everything else is shit.

    source
  • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I work in tech and can confirm the the vast majority of engineers “dislike ai” and are disillusioned with AI tools. Even ones that work on AI/ML tools. It’s fewer and fewer people the higher up the pay scale you go.

    There isn’t a single complex coding problem an AI can solve. If you don’t understand something and it helps you write it I’ll close the MR and delete your code since it’s worthless. You have to understand what you write. I do not care if it works. You have to understand every line.

    “But I use it just fine and I’m an…”

    Then you’re not an engineer and you shouldn’t have a job. You lack the intelligence, dedication and knowledge needed to be one. You are detriment to your team and company.

    source

    • Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      “I can calculate powers with decimal values in the exponent and if you can not do that on paper but instead use these machines, your calculations are worthless and you are not an engineer”

      You seem to fail to see that this new tool has unique strengths. As the other guy said, it is just like people ranting about Wikipedia. Absurd.

      source

      • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        You can also just have an application designed to do that do it more accurately.

        If you can’t do that you’re not an engineer. If you don’t recommend that you’re not an engineer.

        source
    • 5gruel@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      That’s some weird gatekeeping. Why stop there? Whoever is using a linter is obviously too stupid to write clean code right off the bat. Syntax highlighting is for noobs.

      I full-heartedly dislike people that think they need to define some arcane rules how a task is achieved instead of just looking at the output.

      Accept that you probably already have merged code that was generated by AI and it’s totally fine as long as tests are passing and it fits the architecture.

      source

      • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        You’re supposed to gatekeep code. There is nothing wrong with gatekeeping things that aren’t hobbies.

        If someone can’t explain every change they’re making and why they chose to do it that way they’re getting denied. The bar is low.

        source
• MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Is it worse than the current system of editors making shitty click bait titles?

  source

  • homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Surprisingly, yes

    source