4 ms·
> Eliminating made-up information and bias from chat-based search engines is impossible given the current state of the technology, says Mark Riedl, a professor
by epups 4y ago
> Eliminating made-up information and bias from chat-based search engines is impossible given the current state of the technology, says Mark Riedl, a professor at Georgia Institute of Technology who studies artificial intelligence. He believes the release of these technologies to the public by Microsoft and OpenAI is premature. “We are putting out products that are still being actively researched at this moment,” he adds.
As far as I can tell, this is the gist of the article, which I find boring. When Google started, its main product was still being actively researched - heck, it was the result of an algorithm from two grad students. You definitely had and still have made-up and biased results there too. Yet it was an incredibly useful technology.
- kevingadd 4y agoGoogle listing search results that are unverified is a little different from an AI confidently answering a question wrong in English prose, isn't it? Only one of them is asserting truth.
- Kamq 4y ago> Only one of them is asserting truth. Have any of these companies actually asserted any truth around these models? I mean, the model itself asserts a bunch of truth, but I have a lot of books that confidently assert truths that are completely wrong (fiction), and it hasn't caused many problems. This seems more like it depends very much on how the product is framed. If these companies are claiming that the models are completely accurate, they should definitely be hit for some kind of fraud, but I haven't actually seen that. The closest I've seen is companies claiming that they could be useful (and based on comments here, I think that's quite justified).
- Robotbeat 4y agoNot really. In fact with Google it could be worse as it can unknowingly lead you to a fake site (spammer site meant to look like an official government website, for instance), whereas ChatGPT gives you explicit acknowledgement when you log in that a lot of the stuff it says is fake, plus it is clear you’re chatting with an AI.
- spcebar 4y agoIt's kind of like the difference between reading magazines at the supermarket checkout and going to a fortune teller. Both are going to have misinformation, but people are going to weigh that misinformation differently. You can have a sign outside of a fortune teller's that says "this is a novelty and is purely for amusement" and people are still going to believe the fortune teller can see the future, and likewise, you can have a magazine that says something about a "half man half bat" and people will still lend credence to it because hey, the supermarket is selling it, there must be some validity to it. We are remarkably good at ignoring warning labels and accepting misinformation if it sounds right or agrees with our existing biases, and I think if you're someone who accepts the half man half bat you're someone who's going to give even more weight to a fortune teller regardless of how many signs say "ignore the fortune teller."
- epups 4y agoI'm not sure that's relevant, since the expected behavior with Google would be to click and go to sites that are confidently asserting untruths. In a number of cases those are the top results.