3 ms·
The Princeton researchers calling out ‘AI snake oil’
- rvz 3y agoJust like the critics in crypto, we also need critics in AI and deep learning that cut through the hype, debunk the AI narratives and present the limitations. > The key distinction that we make is between predictive AI and generative AI. In our view, most of the snake oil is concentrated in predictive AI. When we say snake oil, it’s an AI that doesn’t work at all — not just an AI that doesn’t live up to its hype; there’s certainly some of that going on in generative AI. Well there is no problem as long as generative AI is used for creatively purposes. But then the snake oil sales pitch is shown when generative AI is used to objective and factual information and it is clear that the frequency of hallucinations, incorrect answers and lack of reasoning with also having a human to supervise it, shows that it isn't trusted and that it is also a form of snake oil product. > So the basic question is, how are you defending against hacking or tricking these AI models? It’s horrifying to me that companies are ignoring those security vulnerabilities that exist today and instead smoking their pipes and speculating about a future rogue AI. That has been really depressing. The industry knows that they don't have an answer to that good question but to only continue the narrative of 'AGI' approaching us very quickly to raise that VC money 'urgently'.