4 ms·
Alphabet shares dive after Google AI chatbot Bard flubs answer in ad
- carlmr 4y agoThe funny thing to me is that chatGPT frequently spews confident bullshit. That the marketing employee at Google that greenlighted the ad didn't notice is a failure of human, not artificial, intelligence.
- quantified 4y agoWhen will we be frequently using the term A.S. for artificial stupidity?
- quectophoton 4y agoProbably we need to first start using the term Artificial Sapience as synonym for Artificial Intelligence so that it catches up on marketing, and then we could use the "A.S." abbreviation the same way some people say DRM meaning Digital Restrictions Management.
- quantified 4y agoSapience? I take that as a jest. AI is even farther from wisdom and sagacity than it is from "intelligence"
- reacharavindh 4y agoThis got me thinking.. perhaps there will new form of SEO where someone really wants to push their false agenda, they only need to convince the generative AI with whatever it takes(more pages of same lies, more prominent sources with the lie, etc) and then they are set… We are in for rough times.
- 988747 4y agoYou can always expand AI as "Artificial Idiocy"
- Zetobal 4y agoDid you miss the part in the presentation were they rambled on for about 30mins how their implementation doesn't make these pesky little mistakes their competition does?
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoThey were clearly wrong I guess. Until there's some logical component to the AI, it's just regurgitating whatever answers it was trained on, which are sometimes somebody spouting bs. How can it possibly be any different?
- dakshisdaksh 4y agoWhy did they not pre-decide what to show on the presentation? This sounds so dumb!
- londons_explore 4y agoThey did. And they still screwed up.
- amf12 4y agoUnfortunately, this was a very specific fact that was difficult to catch. Nobody realized for the first day that there was a mistake. It doesn't absolve them though. I'd have expected them to verify everything in the response before publishing it. It was more a failure on the the event organizers than the technology. But, I find it hilarious that news outlets are being overly critical about Google's technology, rather than just the event, even when ChatGPT also makes mistakes and hallucinates.
- knowriju 4y agoWhat the article states but subtly implies differently is what they mean by 'after'. Event 1 was incorrect info in ad. Event 2 was shares stumbling 8% The article just says that Event 2 happened after Event 1 and not that Event 2 happened 'because of' Event 1.
- DiscourseFan 4y ago[dead]
- montag 4y agoI wish we could let go of the idea that Google or Microsoft is liable - directly culpable - for the output of these incomprehensibly complex language models. This notion will impede progress.
- ostenning 4y agoWith liability comes responsibility, which is in my view more important than progress. Otherwise we would just progress into a dysfunctional dystopian world
- realjhol 4y agoYou think the current world isn't dysfunction or dystopian?
- DiscourseFan 4y agoWell if it is then shouldn't we try to change it? Personally, I don't want to live in a dystopia...
- _8j50 4y agoYour point being? When damage is done, do you have any suggestion as to who should be held responsible? With normal search results, the site or user generating it is held accountable.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoWhen they stop insisting the models are useful or correct.
- ThrowawayTestr 4y agoThey are useful though.
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vivegi 4y agoOne of the early uses of machine learning back in the ‘80s was Optical Character Recognition (OCR). Even that had character confidence levels to indicate how confident the engine was in recognizing the character from the image. When end user tools started wrapping the OCR libraries for use, they simply drop this information and just use the text output. Due to this, the end user loses the context of what is a possibly correct recognition versus an erroneous one. Granted, there were false positive. But, if one used the confidence information, smarter UIs could be built. The same story repeats with ChatGpt and Bard. Some hinting to the end user on how confident the AI is with the generated output will help the user build successive prompts that converge on the right output, eventually.
- sidcool 4y agoThis seems unnecessarily cruel of wall Street. ChatGPT makes blunders all the time.
- kerpotgh 4y ago[dead]