That’s part of the cost of AI that the AI companies leave to their customers. There is a tradeoff and we know from a long history of for-profit corporate behaviour that they will generally prefer lower short term cost, despite consequent risk and harm. But if the companies that sell AI services don’t take care to ensure the outputs are true and the companies that use AI don’t take care then that leaves the ultimate customer/consumer to fact check everything. That or simply be oblivious or stop trusting anything. The problem is made worse by the fact that most companies won’t disclose their use of AI, because of the adverse impact on their reputation, unless they are compelled to do so. So far, I don’t see any legislation to compel disclosure.
Comment on Ars Technica Fires Reporter After AI Controversy Involving Fabricated Quotes
5gruel@lemmy.world 22 hours agoin what world would independent fact checking down to the level of individual quotes be feasible for an online magazine? you can’t be serious.
tangeli@piefed.social 21 hours ago
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 20 hours ago
That used to be the standard…
rodneylives@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Key is, used to be. Ars Technica is one of the best such magazines out there, but even their margins have to be razor thin. To stay at the top of Google search results you have to update super frequently. (Source: this Metafilter post: metafilter.com/…/Ars-Technica-Pulls-AI-Article-Wi…)
5gruel@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
I highly doubt that. how would that even work? a third-party to the publisher would have to check every statement before the issue goes to print. I can’t imagine this happening for anything that is not research papers or official reports.
but I happy to learn something new.
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 3 hours ago
This can and should be done internally. Why would it need to be a third party? Any publisher that cares about their reputation anyway. Fact-checkers are a real thing. They routinely follow up on interviews to make sure authors aren’t bullshitting.