4 ms·

I don’t think that’s true. I think a lot of these articles actually create these results intentionally so that they have the conclusion they want to write about

I don’t think that’s true. I think a lot of these articles actually create these results intentionally so that they have the conclusion they want to write about: that AI isn’t ready. I have been watching Devin and really see the model they have implemented working well for these kinds of executive function step-by-step LLM tasks. It’s remarkably smart how they implemented it. https://the-decoder.com/cognition-unveils-ai-powered-software-developer-devin-for-better-programming/ https://the-decoder.com/cognition-unveils-ai-powered-softwar... If you give vague instructions to a junior level human you get poor work product just like AI. But every journalist wants to write that ringer-dinger traffic bringer about ai not being ready for prime time or whatever bad headline works…

JohnFen 3y ago
You seem to be assuming malice or bad faith here, but I haven't seen any reason to suspect that. Not to say that you're wrong, of course. You might be right. I just don't see why I should suspect it. Particularly considering that I know multiple people who have made a similar error. The distortion that the extreme hype is generating is pretty widespread.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Perhaps. But I generally would expect some level of research and professionalism beyond such simplistic concepts from someone who has a degree in journalism and works in the field. Hype is precisely what journalists are supposed to cut through. That’s why it’s called ‘reporting.’ So the idea that because many people with no background in AI are confused conflating to reasons why that’s acceptable for journalists writing about it seems rather weak to me. I do see a broad series of articles that follow the pattern, and do believe it to be clickbait ‘journalism’ of the lowest standard. Incompetence could be an explanation, but it’s article after article from professional mainstream sources: sources that should know better or at least have a consult with someone who does as part of their due diligence. That implies it’s being done because it gets views, not because it’s good journalism and is therefore intentional. But that is my conjecture you are right.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Well, the press has always been truly awful at reporting on technical topics. It's why you can't, and never could, take any reporting on such things at face value at all, is why all of the scientists and researchers I've worked with have disliked it when their work gets reported on, and is why the so much of what regular people think "scientists say" is incorrect. Nuance and therefore accuracy gets dropped in favor of having a clear, simple story. I don't see why LLM-related topics would be any different. But the reasons why this happens are pretty clear, and poor intentions or even laziness on the part of the reporters are rarely factors.

JohnFen 3y ago

You seem to be assuming malice or bad faith here, but I haven't seen any reason to suspect that. Not to say that you're wrong, of course. You might be right. I just don't see why I should suspect it. Particularly considering that I know multiple people who have made a similar error. The distortion that the extreme hype is generating is pretty widespread.

happytiger 3y ago
Perhaps. But I generally would expect some level of research and professionalism beyond such simplistic concepts from someone who has a degree in journalism and works in the field. Hype is precisely what journalists are supposed to cut through. That’s why it’s called ‘reporting.’ So the idea that because many people with no background in AI are confused conflating to reasons why that’s acceptable for journalists writing about it seems rather weak to me. I do see a broad series of articles that follow the pattern, and do believe it to be clickbait ‘journalism’ of the lowest standard. Incompetence could be an explanation, but it’s article after article from professional mainstream sources: sources that should know better or at least have a consult with someone who does as part of their due diligence. That implies it’s being done because it gets views, not because it’s good journalism and is therefore intentional. But that is my conjecture you are right.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Well, the press has always been truly awful at reporting on technical topics. It's why you can't, and never could, take any reporting on such things at face value at all, is why all of the scientists and researchers I've worked with have disliked it when their work gets reported on, and is why the so much of what regular people think "scientists say" is incorrect. Nuance and therefore accuracy gets dropped in favor of having a clear, simple story. I don't see why LLM-related topics would be any different. But the reasons why this happens are pretty clear, and poor intentions or even laziness on the part of the reporters are rarely factors.