Gregory's ServerAbsolutely in love with this story about all the mistakes being made by the AI that writes CNET's articles now https://futurism.com/cnet-ai-errors
|
Casey Newton
19 comments
Sean Harding
@caseynewton This is going to play out just like self-driving cars. People think it's really close, and just a bit of refinement will make it as good as humans, but that last little bit is exponentially harder than the part that came before.
unusualplan
@caseynewton It sounds like search results quality/reliability is going to take a big hit, with this poisoning of the well. Google and others must surely be concerned.
Elon Musk ✅🧿
@caseynewton Idiocracy was not imaginative enough. Black Mirror's dystopia wasn't hellish enough apparently either...we as humans feel the need to make the worst possible reality for some reason...even as we warn ourselves and ignore the warnings again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. and again.
AJ Armstrong
@caseynewton @MaxPow3r11 Black Mirror routinely reminds me that the most horrific dystopia can be made worse if it is also pointless and stupid. I could wish it didn’t cleave to reality quite so closely, though.
Shachihoko
I haven't even read the article yet, but I can't help remembering an old saying: "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer."
Tanquist
@caseynewton Won't #AI always be defined by #GarbageInGarbageOut? How can they be certain all of the source data is correct or ethical? How can they be certain the output is not plagiarism or copyright infringement?
JazzyDragon
> Won't #AI always be defined by #GarbageInGarbageOut? It's as defined as we are by garbage in garbage out. > How can they be certain all of the source data is correct or ethical? It shouldn't have to be, it should be the same as if a human looked at all the materials as research for a piece. > How can they be certain the output is not plagiarism or copyright infringement? It should be considered plagiarism or infringement if the output infringes, as we do now.
Mark Gellis 🇺🇸 🇮🇱 🇺🇦 🌈
@caseynewton This is why you don't let artificial intelligences publish things without sending them through a HUMAN editor. 😀
Stuart Marks
@caseynewton Seems like we need to develop some new ethics and ways of thinking about by-lines. Not only for journalists, but for anybody who publishes anything. Not that AI should be forbidden, but if somebody publishes something (co-)written by AI, they need to have fact-checked it, verified the reasoning, etc. Failing to do so should be treated like plagiarism. 
Abazigal
@caseynewton There’s a certain delicious irony when the tool designed to save work and costs ends up creating more work for everybody instead.
Mike, you know -that- Mike.
What’s doubly sad…. CNET has written this same article every year, maybe even twice a year. |
@caseynewton The “mansplaining machine” metaphor continues to establish its superiority.