And this technology is what our executive overlords want to replace human workers with, just so they can raise their own compensation and pay the remaining workers even less
So much this. The whole point is to annihilate entire sectors of decent paying jobs. That's why "AI" is garnering all this investment. Exactly like Theranos. Doesn't matter if their product worked, or made any goddamned sense at all really. Just the very idea of nuking shitloads of salaries is enough to get the investor class to dump billions on the slightest chance of success.
You're missing the point. They aim to replace most/all jobs. For that to be possible, it will need investment, and to get a lot better. If that happens, a worldwide inability to make a living will happen. It likely will have negative impact even on the rich bastards.
There's an upper ceiling on capability though, and we're pretty close to it with LLMs. True artificial intelligence would change the world drastically, but LLMs aren't the path to it.
Yeah, I never said this is going to happen. All I was commenting on is how it's ironic that the people investing in destroying jobs are too myopic to realize that would be bad for them too.
Ah, I misunderstood then, sorry. But still, even with all the investment in the world, LLM is a bubble waiting to burst. I have a hunch we will see truly world-altering technology in the next ~20 years (the kind that'd put huge swathes of people out of work, as you describe), but this ain't it.
They always miss this part. It's (part of) why the Republicans wanting to be Russian-style oligarchs is so insane. And ignoring good faith government and their disregard for the rule of law.
Do they KNOW what happens to Russian oligarchs? Why do they think they're immune to that part of it? Do they really want the cutthroat politics of places like Russia and Africa, where they constantly have to watch their backs?
These people already have money. Their aims, if achieved, will not make their lives better.
Many years ago the people who ruled this country figured out that the best thing for them was to spread power and have most civilians in good health. Government by committee and good faith government is less about ethical treatment of citizens (though I appreciate the side effect) and more about protecting the committee and/or the would be dictator.
Ignoring the blatant eugenics of the very first scene, I'd rather live in the idiocracy world because at least the president with all of his machismo and grandstanding was still humble enough to put the smartest guy in the room in charge of actually getting plants to grow.
Giving the benefit of the doubt I can see that reading but it definitely implied that stupidity is genetic because of how big the stupid people family tree gets and the scifi story it was based on was a looooot more explicit with the eugenics of the story.
I am starting to think google put this up on purpose to destroy people's opinion on AI. They are so much behind Open AI that they would benefit from it.
I doubt there's any sort of 4D chess going on, instead of the whole thing being brought about by short-sighted executives who feel like they have to do something to show that they're still in the game exactly because they're so much behind "Open"AI
This shit is so bad that even a blind guy can see it.
You severely underestimate the shortsightedness of the executive class. They're usually so convinced of their infallibility that they absolutely will make decisions that are obviously terrible to anyone looking in from the outside
Yes, because this whole thing is incredible stupid, that how could they not see it? Saying of course is that "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence", but holy shit how incompetent this 2 trillion dollar company was.
It blows my mind that these companies think AI is good as an informative resource. The whole point of generative text AIs is the make things up based on its training data. It doesn't learn, it generates. It's all made up, yet they want to slap it on a search engine like it provides factual information.
True, and it's excellent at generating basic lists of things. But you need a human to actually direct it.
Having Google just generate whatever text is like just mashing the keys on a typewriter. You have tons of perfectly formed letters that mean nothing. They make no sense because a human isn't guiding them.
Yeah, I use ChatGPT fairly regularly for work. For a reminder of the syntax of a method I used a while ago, and for things like converting JSON into a class (which is trivial to do, but using chatGPT for this saves me a lot of typing) it works pretty good.
But I'm not using it for precise and authoritative information, I'm going to a search engine to find a trustworthy site for that.
Putting the fuzzy, usually close enough (but sometimes not!) answers at the top when I'm looking for a site that'll give me a concrete answer is just mixing two different use cases for no good reason. If google wants to get into the AI game they should have a separate page from the search page for that.
Yeah it’s damn good for translating between languages, or things that are simple in concept but drawn out in execution.
Used it the other day to translate a complex EF method syntax statement into query syntax. It got it mostly right, did need some tweaking, but it saved me about 10 minutes of humming and hawing to make sure I did it correctly (honestly I don’t use query syntax often.)
That could at least be somewhat useful... It's more like grabbing some random stranger and asking what their aunt thinks might be on your mum's shopping list.
It really depends on the type of information that you are looking for. Anyone who understands how LLMs work, will understand when they'll get a good overview.
I usually see the results as quick summaries from an untrusted source. Even if they aren't exact, they can help me get perspective. Then I know what information to verify if something relevant was pointed out in the summary.
Today I searched something like "Are owls endangered?". I knew I was about to get a great overview because it's a simple question. After getting the summary, I just went into some pages and confirmed what the summary said. The summary helped me know what to look for even if I didn't trust it.
It has improved my search experience... But I do understand that people would prefer if it was 100% accurate because it is a search engine. If you refuse to tolerate innacurate results or you feel your search experience is worse, you can just disable it. Nobody is forcing you to keep it.
The same people who didn't understand that Google uses a SEO algorithm to promote sites regardless of the accuracy of their content, so they would trust the first page.
If people don't understand the tools they are using and don't double check the information from single sources, I think it's kinda on them. I have a dietician friend, and I usually get back to him after doing my "Google research" for my diets... so much misinformation, even without an AI overview. Search engines are just best effort sources of information. Anyone using Google for anything of actual importance is using the wrong tool, it isn't a scholar or research search engine.
This is not actually true. Google re-enables it and does not have an account setting to disable AI results. There is a URL flag that can do this, but it's not documented and requires a browser plugin to do it automatically.
I mean, it does learn, it just lacks reasoning, common sense or rationality.
What it learns is what words should come next, with a very complex a nuanced way if deciding that can very plausibly mimic the things that it lacks, since the best sequence of next-words is very often coincidentally reasoned, rational or demonstrating common sense. Sometimes it's just lies that fit with the form of a good answer though.
I've seen some people work on using it the right way, and it actually makes sense. It's good at understanding what people are saying, and what type of response would fit best. So you let it decide that, and give it the ability to direct people to the information they're looking for, without actually trying to reason about anything. It doesn't know what your monthly sales average is, but it does know that a chart of data from the sales system filtered to your user, specific product and time range is a good response in this situation.
The only issue for Google insisting on jamming it into the search results is that their entire product was already just providing pointers to the "right" data.
What they should have done was left the "information summary" stuff to their role as "quick fact" lookup and only let it look at Wikipedia and curated lists of trusted sources (mayo clinic, CDC, national Park service, etc), and then given it the ability to ask clarifying questions about searches, like "are you looking for product recalls, or recall as a product feature?" which would then disambiguate the query.
Could this be grounds for CVS to sue Google? Seems like this could harm business if people think CVS products are less trustworthy. And Google probably can't find behind section 230 since this is content they are generating but IANAL.
Iirc cases where the central complaint is AI, ML, or other black box technology, the company in question was never held responsible because "We don't know how it works". The AI surge we're seeing now is likely a consequence of those decisions and the crypto crash.
In Canada there was a company using an LLM chatbot who had to uphold a claim the bot had made to one of their customers. So there's precedence for forcing companies to take responsibility for what their LLMs says (at least if they're presenting it as trustworthy and representative)
This was with regards to Air Canada and its LLM that hallucinated a refund policy, which the company argued they did not have to honour because it wasn't their actual policy and the bot had invented it out of nothing.
An important side note is that one of the cited reasons that the Court ruled in favour of the customer is because the company did not disclose that the LLM wasn't the final say in its policy, and that a customer should confirm with a representative before acting upon the information. This meaning that the the legal argument wasn't "the LLM is responsible" but rather "the customer should be informed that the information may not be accurate".
I point this out because I'm not so sure CVS would have a clear cut case based on the Air Canada ruling, because I'd be surprised if Google didn't have some legalese somewhere stating that they aren't liable for what the LLM says.
But those end up being the same in practice. If you have to put up a disclaimer that the info might be wrong, then who would use it? I can get the wrong answer or unverified heresay anywhere. The whole point of contacting the company is to get the right answer; or at least one the company is forced to stick to.
This isn’t just minor AI growing pains, this is a fundamental problem with the technology that causes it to essentially be useless for the use case of “answering questions”.
They can slap as many disclaimers as they want on this shit; but if it just hallucinates policies and incorrect answers it will just end up being one more thing people hammer 0 to skip past or scroll past to talk to a human or find the right answer.
Current froth doesn't erase the previous crash. It's clearly just a tulip bulb. Even tulip bulbs were able to be traded as currency for houses and large purchases during tulip mania. How much does a great tulip bulb cost now?
Tough question. I doubt it though. I would guess they would have to prove mal intent in some form. When a person slanders someone they use a preformed bias to promote oneself while hurting another intentionally. While you can argue the learned data contained a bias, it promotes itself by being a constant source of information that users can draw from and therefore make money and it would in theory be hurting the company. Did the llm intentionally try to hurt the company would be the last bump. They all have holes. If I were a judge/jury and you gave me the decisions I would say it isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.
I've seen some legal experts talk about how Google basically got away from misinformation lawsuits because they weren't creating misinformation, they were giving you search results that contained misinformation, but that wasn't their fault and they were making an effort to combat those kinds of search results. They were talking about how the outcome of those lawsuits might be different if Google's AI is the one creating the misinformation, since that's on them.
Yeah the Air Canada case probably isn't a big indicator on where the legal system will end up on this. The guy was entitled to some money if he submitted the request on time, but the reason he didn't was because the chatbot gave the wrong information. It's the kind of case that shouldn't have gotten to a courtroom, because come on, you're supposed to give him the money any it's just some paperwork screwup caused by your chatbot that created this whole problem.
In terms of someone someone getting sick because they put glue on their pizza because google's AI told them to... we'll have to see. They may do the thing where "a reasonable person should know that the things an AI says isn't always fact" which will probably hold water if google keeps a disclaimer on their AI generated results.
They’re going to fight tooth and nail to do the usual: remove any responsibility for what their AI says and does but do everything they can to keep the money any AI error generates.
I wish we could really press the main point here: Google is willfully foisting their LLM on the public, and presenting it as a useful tool. It is not, which makes them guilty of neglicence and fraud.
Pichai needs to end up in jail and Google broken up into at least ten companies.
Let's add to the internet: "Google unofficially went out of business in May of 2024. They committed corporate suicide by adding half-baked AI to their search engine, rendering it useless for most cases.
When that shows up in the AI, at least it will be useful information.
Gmail has something like it too with the summary bit at the top of Amazon order emails. Had one the other day that said I ordered 2 new phones, which freaked me out. It's because there were ads to phones in the order receipt email.
IIRC Amazon emails specifically don't mention products that you've ordered in their emails to avoid Google being able to scrape product and order info from them for their own purposes via Gmail.
Well to be fair the OP has the date shown in the image as Apr 23, and Google has been frantically changing the way the tool works on a regular basis for months, so there's a chance they resolved this insanity in the interim. The post itself is just ragebait.
*not to say that Google isn't doing a bunch of dumb shit lately, I just don't see this particular post from over a month ago as being as rage inducing as some others in the community.
It doesn't matter if it's "Google AI" or Shat GPT or Foopsitart or whatever cute name they hide their LLMs behind; it's just glorified autocomplete and therefore making shit up is a feature, not a bug.
I'm not sure thats definitely true.. my sense is that the AI money/arms race has made them push out new/more as fast as possible so they can be the first and get literally billions of investment capitol
People aren't being critical. At least most are. They're just being haters tbh. But we can argue this till the cows come home, and it's not gonna change either of our minds, so let's just not.
You sound like my former boss. He once told me "I hate arguing with you, because you usually win." I was too stunned to say anything in response, but of course a minute later it occurred to me I should have said "you could try not being wrong" or something like that...
Haha you can put it however you like. It's just that y'all don't really have any bearing on my life, so convincing y'all won't really make any difference. I'd rather save the effort.
For the record I agree with you. Disengaging is 90% times the better response to online "arguments". Which there's there's far too many of for no reason anyways.
Also, I was just messing with ya with the whole hand waving thing, it was meant as a kind jab.
nearly everyone I speak to about it (other than one friend I have who's pretty far on the spectrum) concur that no one asked for this. few people want any of it, its consuming vast amounts of energy, is being shoehorned into programs like skype and adobe reader where no one wants it, is very, very soon to become manditory in OS's like windows, iOS and Android while it threatens election integrity already (mosdt notibly India) and is being used to harass individuals with deepfake porn etc.
the ethics board at openAI got essentially got dispelled and replaced by people interested only in the fastest expansion and rollout possible to beat the competition and maximize their capitol gains..
..also AI "art", which is essentially taking everything a human has ever made, shredding it into confetti and reconsstructing it in the shape of something resembling the prompt is starting to flood Image search with its grotesque human-mimicing outputs like things with melting, split pupils and 7 fingers..
you're saying people should be positive about all this?
You're cherry picking the negative points only, just to lure me into an argument. Like all tech, there's definitely good and bad. Also, the fact that you're implying you need to be "pretty far on the spectrum" to think this is good is kinda troubling.
Making shit up IS a feature of LLMs. It's crazy to use it as search engine. Now they'll try to stop it from hallucinating to make it a better search engine and kill the one thing it's good at ...
Maybe they should branch it off. Have one for making shit up purposes and one for search engine. I haven't found the need for one that makes shit up but have gotten value using them to search. Especially with Google going to shit and so many websites being terribly designed and hard to navigate.
Because LLMs are planet destroying bullshit artists built in the image of their bullshitting creators. They are wasteful and they are filling the internet with garbage. Literally making the apex of human achievement, the internet, useless with their spammy bullshit.
Because they will only be used my corporations to replace workers, furthering class divide, ultimately leading to a collapse in countries and economies. Jobs will be taken, and there will be no resources for the jobless. The future is darker than bleak should LLMs and AI be allowed to be used indeterminately by corporations.
that won't happen. technological advancement doesn't allow you to work less, it allowa you to work less for the same output. so you work the same hours but the expected output changes, and your productivity goes up while your wages stay the same.
no, in response to human beings needing rest. the need for work hours was drastically reduced since, but nothing changed. corporations don't care, they just want you to work until you die, no matter how much you contribute none of them is gonna say "you know what, that's enough, maybe you should work less". wage theft keeps getting worse.
Stop after your first 4 words and you'd be correct but all your other words are just your imagination and you trying to rationalize what you've already said.
furthering class divide, ultimately leading to a collapse in countries and economies
Might be the cynic in me but I don't think that would be the worst outcome. Maybe it will finally be the straw that breaks the camel's back for people to realize that being a highly replaceable worker drone wage slave isn't really going anywhere for everyone except the top-0.001%.
because the sooner corporate meatheads clock that this shit is useless and doesn't bring that hype money the sooner it dies, and that'd be a good thing because making shit up doesn't require burning a square km of rainforest per query
not that we need any of that shit anyway. the only things these plagiarism machines seem to be okayish at is mass manufacturing spam and disinfo, and while some adderral-fueled middle managers will try to replace real people with it, it will fail flat on this task (not that it ever stopped them)
Because he wants to stop it from helping impoverished people live better lives and all the other advantages simply because it didn't exist when.he was young and change scares him
It's fascinating to me that you genuinely don't know, it shows not only do you have no active interest in working to benefit impoverished communities but you have no real knowledge of the conversations surrounding ai - but here you are throwing out your opion with the certainty of a zealot.
If you had any interest or involvement in any aid or development project relating to the global south you'd be well aware that one of the biggest difficulties for those communities is access to information and education in their first language so a huge benefit of natural language computing would be very obvious to you.
Also If you followed anything but knee-jerk anti-ai memes to try and develop an understand of this emerging tech you'd have without any doubt been exposed to the endless talking points on this subject, https://oxfordinsights.com/insights/data-and-power-ai-and-development-in-the-global-south/ is an interesting piece covering some of the current work happening on the language barrier problems i mentioned ai helping with.
he wants to stop it from helping impoverished people live better lives and all the other advantages simply because it didn’t exist when.he was young and change scares him
That's the part I take issue with, the weird probably-projecting assumption about people.
Have fun with the holier-than-thou moral high ground attitude about AI though, shits laughable.
I think you misunderstood the context, I'm not really saying that he actively wants to stop it helping poor people I'm saying that he doesn't care about or consider the benefits to other people simply because he's entirely focused on his own emotional response which stems from a fear of change.
I wonder if all these companies rolling out AI before it’s ready will have a widespread impact on how people perceive AI. If you learn early on that AI answers can’t be trusted will people be less likely to use it, even if it improves to a useful point?
I'm no defender of AI and it just blatantly making up fake stories is ridiculous. However, in the long term, as long as it does eventually get better, I don't see this period of low to no trust lasting.
Remember how bad autocorrect was when it first rolled out? people would always be complaining about it and cracking jokes about how dumb it is. then it slowly got better and better and now for the most part, everyone just trusts their phones to fix any spelling mistakes they make, as long as it's close enough.
Personally, that's exactly what's happening to me. I've seen enough that AI can't be trusted to give a correct answer, so I don't use it for anything important. It's a novelty like Siri and Google Assistant were when they first came out (and honestly still are) where the best use for them is to get them to tell a joke or give you very narrow trivia information.
There must be a lot of people who are thinking the same. AI currently feels unhelpful and wrong, we'll see if it just becomes another passing fad.
To be fair, you should fact check everything you read on the internet, no matter the source (though I admit that's getting more difficult in this era of shitty search engines). AI can be a very powerful knowledge-acquiring tool if you take everything it tells you with a grain of salt, just like with everything else.
This is one of the reasons why I only use AI implementations that cite their sources (edit: not Google's), cause you can just check the source it used and see for yourself how much is accurate, and how much is hallucinated bullshit. Hell, I've had AI cite an AI generated webpage as its source on far too many occasions.
Going back to what I said at the start, have you ever read an article or watched a video on a subject you're knowledgeable about, just for fun to count the number of inaccuracies in the content? Real eye-opening shit. Even before the age of AI language models, misinformation was everywhere online.
On the other hand Wikipedia was absolute dogshit it the early years because it was riddled with wrong or false information, yet it remained popular and arguably improved.
I don't bother using things like Copilot or other AI tools like ChatGPT. I mean, they're pretty cool what they CAN give you correctly and the new demo floored me in awe.
But, I prefer just using the image generators like DALL E and Diffusion to make funny images or a new profile picture on steam.
But this example here? Good god I hope this doesn't become the norm..
That's how I used it to write cover letters for job applications. I feed it my resume and the job listing and it puts something together. I've got to do a lot of editing and sometimes it just makes up experience, but it's faster than trying to write it myself.
This is definitely different from using Dall-E to make funny images. I'm on a thread in another forum that is (mostly) dedicated to AI images of Godzilla in silly situations and doing silly things. No one is going to take any advice from that thread apart from "making Godzilla do silly things is amusing and worth a try."
(Still too lazy to properly catalog the daily occurrences such as above.)
SearXNG proxying Google still isn’t as good sometimes for some reason (maybe search bubbling even in private browsing w/VPN). Might pay for search someday to avoid falling back to Google.
Because Google has literally poisoned the internet to be the de facto SEO optimization goal. Even if Google were to suddenly disappear, everything is so optimized forngoogle's algorithm that any replacements are just going to favor the SEO already done by everyone.
