Having worked with AI and AI products in my last job before I was let go I can say this:
Out of the box AI is very good at the following:
- Mundane very simple binary/boolean tasks. Is this a yes/no. Can I find a piece of information that I was told is here based on your statement? Etc
- Condensing very complex processes into very simplistic things - NOTE you will lose a lot of information based on this action unless you refine a statement.
- Making overarching summaries - kinda similar to 2 but also its own thing, think more creating a summary of a book.
Programmed AI - read machine learning, because you are still telling it how to interpret things - can be good at (depending how good you are at telling it what it should do):
- Interpreting meaning in a statement.
- Understanding if - then constructs.
- Deducing plausible outcomes.
ALL AI struggles at:
- Interpreting real vs fake (thats why you literally teach it how to understand what a spot light is with your captcha)
- Understanding complexity in speech and tonal differences - I am SO happy to be here /s
- Thinking on its own - using collected data to make an inference that it was not directly programmed to understand
The big craze over AI totally was misunderstood. AI is best to be thought of as Automated Intelligence and the word Artificial at its current state is a complete misnomer.
This is just one example of people having been mislead by the name to not fully understand what is up with AI.
I get paranoid enough about making sure I'm clicking the correct search result and not some scam. I hope I would avoid any AI answers but yeah, to many people it could be confusing.
Well, I have considered it.
it's seo games all over again
and the former kings of tuning the algorithms to favor seo that bubbled useful info up harder have thrown it all out in the name of impressing everyone with how space age and sci fi their tech is. it's not about advancing science or even pushing a useful product. it's strictly a tool for scams. is it a surprise that scammers are gaming the google scam better than anyone else? not really. they've always had a step up compared to the average internet denizen thanks to practice. this is why i get so frustrated when people dismiss ai skepticism as being a product of luddites.
- you're getting scammed to think ai will benefit you
- systems built by scammers will always benefit scammers
- the luddites were right. scientific advancements should benefit the workers, not the rich
I mean, this isn't specifically an AI issue, this is scammers updating the info in Google business listings because the airlines don't actually care to maintain those pages (and Google doesn't want actual humans doing any work to make sure their shit is accurate). This has been going on before AI, AI is just following the garbage in, garbage out model that everyone said was going to be the result of this push.
Your historical information is accurate, but I disagree with your framing. This particular scam is so powerful because the information is organized, parsed, and delivered in a fashion that makes it look professional and makes it look believable.
Google and the other AI companies have put themselves in mind. They know that their system is encouraging this type of scam, but they don't dare put giant disclaimers at the top of every AI generated paragraph, because they're trying to pretend that their s*** is good, except when it's not, and then it's not their fault. In other words, it's basic dishonesty.
This is why "AI" should be avoided at all cost. It's all bullshit. Any tool that "hallucinates" - I. E. Is error strewn - is not fit for purpose. Gaming the AI is just the latest example of the crap being spewed by these systems.
The underlying technology has its uses but its niche and focused applications, nowhere near as capable or as ready as the hype.
We don't use Wikipedia as a primary source because it has to be fact checked. AI isn't anywhere as near accurate as Wikipedia.so why use it?
The underlying technology has its uses
Yes indeed agreed.
Sometimes BS is exactly what I need! Like, hallucinated brainstorm suggestions can work for some workflows and be safe when one is careful to discard or correct them. Copying a comment I made a week ago:
I don’t love it for summarization. If I read a summary, my takeaway may be inaccurate.
Brainstorming is incredible. And revision suggestions. And drafting tedious responses, reformatting, parsing.
In all cases, nothing gets attributed to me unless I read every word and am in a position to verify the output. And I internalize nothing directly, besides philosophy or something. Sure can be an amazing starting point especially compared to a blank page.
https://ea.rna.nl/2024/05/27/when-chatgpt-summarises-it-actually-does-nothing-of-the-kind/
A good read about ai summarizing.
Because some are lazy fucks
Gotta tell you, you made a fairly extreme pronouncement against a very general term / idea with this:
"AI" should be avoided at all cost
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? It sounds, to me, like this - "Vague idea I poorly understand ('AI') should be 'avoided' (???) with disregard for any negative consequences, without considering them at all"
Cool take you've got?
Edit to add: whoops! Just realized the community I'm in. Carry on, didn't mean to come to the precise wrong place to make this argument lol.
Wait until you hear about the AI's programming abilities!
It "knows" that a Python program starts with some lines like: from (meaningless package name) include *
If you can register the package name it invents, your code could be running on some of the world's biggest companies' internal servers!
and that's why I always go straight to the company website to find that info instead of googling it
I google for the company website (e.g. Wikipedia) and then I google with the site in mind for info. Works well
AI results are always so bad. I don't like that there is AI medical results. That needs more pushback.
Ironically, that is possibly one of the few legit uses.
Doctors can't learn about every obscure condition and illness. This means they can miss the symptoms of them for a long time. An AI that can check for potential matches to the symptoms involved could be extremely useful.
The provisio is that it is NOT a replacement for a doctor. It's a supplement that they can be trained to make efficient use of.
Yet again tech companies are here to ruin the day. LLM are such a neat little language processing tool. It's amazing for reverse looking up definitions (where you know the concept but can't remember some dumb name) or when looking for starting points or want to process your ideas and get additional things to look at, but most definitely not a finished product of any kind. Fuck tech companies for selling it as a search engine replacement!
It is great at search. See this awesome example I hit just today from Google's AI overview:
Housing prices in the United States dropped significantly between 2007 and 2020 due to the housing bubble and the Great Recession:
2007: The median sales price for a home in the first quarter of 2007 was $257,400. The average price of a new home in September 2007 was $240,300.
2020: The average sales price for a new home in 2020 was $391,900.
See, without AI I would have thought housing prices went up between 2007, and that $391,900 was a bigger number than $257,400.
That is literally the worst use case for AIs. There's no way they should be letting it provide contact info like that.
Also they're stupid for dialing a random number.
Honestly I wanted to write a snug comment about "But but it even says AI can sometimes make mistakes!", but after clicking through multiple links and disclaimers I can't find Google actually admitting that
Would that make Google liable? I mean that wouldn't be a case of users posting information that would be a case of Google posting information in that case wouldn't it? So it seems to me they'd be legally liable at that point.
Ah but Google is a giant company and as is U.S. law doesn't have to fave consequences for anything
In a sane world? Yes.
I think there's a disclaimer with all AI summaries. Although, I just tried googling United airlines and there is no longer an AI summary, only a message directly from their website.
Yes, so, no.
They gave up working search with algorithms that are easier to reason about and correct for with a messy neural network that is broken in so many ways and basically impossible to generally correct while retaining its core characteristics. A change with this many regressions should've never been pushed to production.
their first mistake was using united airlines. or airlines period. fuck flying
edit: LOL i actually love how people take personal offense every time i say "fuck flying"
so, just so we're all clear: fuck flying
How do you propose crossing oceans in a timely manner?
Same happened to my wife. She gave them enough info that they threatened to call and cancel her flight unless she paid them. Never did cancel it
Holy shit.
Drag is making sure to eat one rock per day and put glue in pizza just like the Google AI says!
Google has been sponsoring scammers as first search results since its creation. Google has caused hundreds of millions of dollars in losses to people, and need to be sued for it.
I feel like Jason ought to have considered it. Spammers have been using this kind of tactic for decades. Of course they're going to change to whatever medium is popular.
I'm sorry but this has been a thing long before "AI" based results. Scammers always used tricks to end up at the top of search results.
At the top, but that isn't what this post is saying. This is saying that Google's AI gave the scammer answer. Not that they provided a link you could click on, but that Google itself said this is the number.
This has been an issue since long before LLMs. Before the AI summary box, scammers used targeted ads to place ahead of the actual company you were searching for.
Yeah, but that was easy to spot, both by people and by Google. There were at least some guardrails, imperfect, not ideal, but they existed. With llm there is basically none
Yep, that's Imitation Intelligence for ya.
Scroll past the Imitation Intelligence summary to the actual links.
I mean, you are using an LLM for search, so that was bound to happen.
Use something like Perplexity.ai for search always gives me great results with links so you can find out where the AI got their info from.
This isn't a problem with AI, but a user problem.
Google literally puts AI "search" at the top of its page and you expect everyone to just ignore that?
I'm not justifying Googles grift.
All I'm saying is that an LLM is only decent at generating text. Everything else it sucks at. So it isn't logical to use it as a search engine. Google is also to blame for that. They are slapping AI to whatever they have running. Like most tech companies these days.
Compare that to Perplexity, which is a search engine first and only uses an LLM to make a summary of websites that are riddled with SEO. And then add a link so you can check for yourself if the LLM is hallucinating or not.
Don't be like a Techbro conflating LLMs and General AI. They are different things. And the sooner all users understand this the better.
Blaming the victim for late-stage capitalism's grifts isn't the own you think it is.
Google is also a user of these LLM technology. They understand as much of em as the average techbro.
That is why they are switching their search engine to an LLM like the morons they are.
Well, stop it?
