4 ms·

>What makes you think those results would be neural, and not sponsored/SEOed the same way everything is these days? Because it would be the less profitable bus

by ralfn 4y ago

>What makes you think those results would be neural, and not sponsored/SEOed the same way everything is these days? Because it would be the less profitable bussiness. >Also, to this day, LLMs/ANNs are not capable of explaining their outcome, and you won't argue/reason with them How would I be able to tell that your response is human and not a LLM? I definately can argue within a chat thread. They can also provide a plausible sounding explanation. We know due to the nature of the technology that that explanation (sounding rational, deductive) isn't the truth. We are just not all ready to accept all the same shortcomings also apply to humans.

nico 4y ago
Very well said. Thank you for the great thread.
nwienert 4y ago
> Because it would be the less profitable bussiness. How is this different from Google?
ezst 4y ago
>> What makes you think those results would be neural, and not sponsored/SEOed the same way everything is these days? > Because it would be the less profitable bussiness. How so? Considering that almost everything on the web right now runs on ad revenue, why would they pass on the opportunity to cash on that if they do no worse than the rest? Especially considering how lucrative those referrals might be, with our lack of preparedness countering those with traditional ad blocking techniques and being more susceptible due to inexperience. > We are just not all ready to accept all the same shortcomings also apply to humans. Because they do not. If you hire a human to do a job for you, you are bound by a contract (and protections, and recourses and enforcement). In the end you will be able to know whether you got robbed into a referral scheme and that's bad for business. With this kind of AI, the result is all you get (technically there is no way to explain it), which gives unfair deniability. Regulators might end up ruling whole classes of algorithms as unfit for purpose/deceptive, and I would personally applaud that. We are just at the beginning of all that and we should focus on developing the technology so it keeps working for us reliably, and not against us or under undetermined circumstances.

by ralfn 4y ago

nico 4y ago

Very well said. Thank you for the great thread.

nwienert 4y ago

> Because it would be the less profitable bussiness. How is this different from Google?

ezst 4y ago

>> What makes you think those results would be neural, and not sponsored/SEOed the same way everything is these days? > Because it would be the less profitable bussiness. How so? Considering that almost everything on the web right now runs on ad revenue, why would they pass on the opportunity to cash on that if they do no worse than the rest? Especially considering how lucrative those referrals might be, with our lack of preparedness countering those with traditional ad blocking techniques and being more susceptible due to inexperience. > We are just not all ready to accept all the same shortcomings also apply to humans. Because they do not. If you hire a human to do a job for you, you are bound by a contract (and protections, and recourses and enforcement). In the end you will be able to know whether you got robbed into a referral scheme and that's bad for business. With this kind of AI, the result is all you get (technically there is no way to explain it), which gives unfair deniability. Regulators might end up ruling whole classes of algorithms as unfit for purpose/deceptive, and I would personally applaud that. We are just at the beginning of all that and we should focus on developing the technology so it keeps working for us reliably, and not against us or under undetermined circumstances.