4 ms·
It sounds like you may have missed the stampede of “AI” companies coming out of the woodwork the last few months. For every legitimate AI project, there have b
by tobyjsullivan 4y ago
It sounds like you may have missed the stampede of “AI” companies coming out of the woodwork the last few months.
For every legitimate AI project, there have been a thousand “entrepreneurs” who spend 4 hours putting a webflow site on top of GPT APIs and claim they’ve built an “AI product”. There’s no limit on the amount of BS benefits they claim. They seem like the same people who just finished running the crypto scams.
It seems quite obvious to me that this cohort is the target of this statement.
- lukeramsden 4y ago> spend 4 hours putting a webflow site on top of GPT APIs GPT _is_ AI though, no? I would think that this would count. Might violate "a re you exaggerating what your AI product can do" or "are you aware of the risks" instead though.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mdp2021 4y ago> GPT _is_ AI though, no? Not all of us would agree. We would only take that expression for a rhetoric simplification (a shortening for "part of a broad AI realm"). We would pivot near the concept of "AI" as "a problem solver that could do the job of a professional". This in way excludes e.g. "build convincing text", because it is not (or should not) be a professional task - though it can surely be part of research. Doubts are possible on all four FTC points - plus more in the linked guidance post from E. Jillison (e.g. "Do more good than harm" - difficult measure on engines which have "relaxed sides").
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Avalaxy 4y ago> GPT _is_ AI though Well, it does not at all have the "intelligence" part of "artificial intelligence", so not really.