Re: Excel can also be unhelpfully helpful...
This is both helpful information, and saying "just do more work something that in more inconvenient, for no good reason"
1014 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Jun 2009
This seems to be an example of Betteridge's law of headlines - Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.
"These are big claims. What lies behind them?"
"behind them?" could be replaced be a full stop.
"domain experts arguing about what the right answer should be"
The main issues aren't disagreements between experts, it's AI spurting out absolute horseshit.
"While putting control over receiving the summaries into the hands of users is helpful, it would be better for Apple to make this an opt in feature until the issues have been ironed out."
The summaries are so egregiously wrong it would be better for Apple to completely disable the feature until it can guarantee a reasonable level of accuracy.
I suspect the time that they can make that guarantee is 'never'.
" free/cheap models have no control over "temperature", and it's never zero. I have no idea why"
To encourage confirmation answers. If you run a generative AI 10 times, then its more likely one is accidentally right, and that is the one that lodges in the brain.
I recently had a case where the AI summary gave (what turned out to be) the right answer when there was a typo in my query, which it corrected to the wrong answer when I fixed the typo.
Unfortunately, we're no closer to rightly apprehending Babbage's confusion of ideas, because the AI is a black box.
"If insurers refused to cover not just business losses from wonky security, but also didn't extend cover at all if standards could not be shown to be in place."
If a couple of the larger insurers did this, then companies would insure themselves with the others.
Offering cheaper insurance to companies with standards in place could work. Or offer cheap insurance, with the option to add an expensive schedule for covering terrible security practices.
Last year Zen were the biggest of the non-shit providers, maybe you can reach 1% if you add them all together. So the share of the broadband market is a tiny niche of a huge market.
The size of the niche will be different in other lines of business.
https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/studies/broadband-statistics/
"Is he trying to differentiate between info that is wrong as an honest mistake, and deliberate misinformation. And then claiming that if the wrong statement is made by a chatbot, it is *deliberately* misinformation, a priori?"
Is a wrong statement is given by a chatbot it is *recklessly* wrong. Whoever decided to use the chatbot either knew it would spew out a load of crap, or should have done.
You can't call information coming from a chatbot deliberately wrong, dishonest or an honest mistake - it does not have a mind that can be deliberate, dishonest or honest.
The idea that I am trying to get at is that companies shouldn't be able to avoid responsibility for their mistakes by getting a bot to make them for it, then claiming the bot didn't have mens rea, so there can't be legal consequences for its actions.
I'm afraid that simpletons will believe that the results that come out of LLMs are accurate, and that it will negatively affect my life and the lives of others.
I'm afraid that simpletons will believe claims about how other AI products work, and that it will negatively affect my lives of others.
I'm afraid that simpletons will believe claims about how other AI products work, and that money and time will be channeled toward the snake oil peddlers, instead of being used for something useful.