3 ms·
"Sure, that's the goal. But it's not like this is an unreasonable thing to get wrong on Google's part. It's hard, this is not like they're failing at easy tasks
by gerdesj 2y ago
"Sure, that's the goal. But it's not like this is an unreasonable thing to get wrong on Google's part. It's hard, this is not like they're failing at easy tasks here."
Should unreasonable trump acceptable? If you fail at something then should you do it?
An uncharitable interpretation seems to allow it is acceptable to imply someone is dead because an algorithmic process is hard ... lol ... l8ers.
At which point is disinformation acceptable?
- tonynator 2y agoSo we shouldn't use AI at all because it's often inaccurate? I think it's fine as long as it's made clear that it's not totally reliable, both in widespread public knowledge and in UI disclaimers.
- CRConrad 2y ago> So we shouldn't use AI at all because it's often inaccurate? Preferably not, yeah.
- loktarogar 2y agoI reckon it's reasonable to say we shouldn't use AI (LLMs) in places where we're looking for accurate information, yeah. Expectations for accuracy are higher in a seemingly curated summary.
- tonynator 2y agoWho would it be "curated" by if not AI? Any form of auto-generated summary online is from AI
- loktarogar 2y agoWe don't need auto summaries if they're not actually correct. It's not a choice between AI or not AI, it's a choice between summaries or no summaries
- tonynator 2y agoPeople seem to like "mostly correct" summaries though, like most other things AI