Report finds newer inferential models hallucinate nearly half the time while experts warn of unresolved flaws, deliberate deception and a long road to human-level AI reliability
This particular anti-AI stance always reminds me of religion gradually losing ground to science.
It’s been pointed out by some folks that if religion’s domain is only ‘what science can’t explain,’ then the domain of religion is continuously shrinking as science grows to explain more and more.
If your anti-AI stance is centered on ‘it wastes power and is wrong too often,’ then your criticism becomes more irrelevant as the accuracy improves and models become more efficient.
The assumption here is that the AI will improve. Under the current approach to AI, that might not be the case, since it could be hitting its limitations and this article may be pointing out a symptom of those limitations.
You’re obviously not interacting with AI much. It is improving, and at an alarming rate. I’m astounded at the difference between AI now vs 3 years ago. They’re moving to new generations in a matter of months.
My point is that the rate of improvement is slowing down. Also, its capabilities are often overblown. On the surface it does something amazing, but then flaws are pointed out by those who have a better understanding of the subject matter, then those flaws are excused with fluff words like “hallucinations”.
All it needs to do is produce less flaws than the average human. It’s already passed that mark for many general use cases (which many people said would never happen). The criticism is now moving to more and more specialized work, but the AI continues to improve in those areas as well.
just one more terawatt-hour of electricity and it’ll be accurate and creative i swear!!
This particular anti-AI stance always reminds me of religion gradually losing ground to science.
It’s been pointed out by some folks that if religion’s domain is only ‘what science can’t explain,’ then the domain of religion is continuously shrinking as science grows to explain more and more.
If your anti-AI stance is centered on ‘it wastes power and is wrong too often,’ then your criticism becomes more irrelevant as the accuracy improves and models become more efficient.
The assumption here is that the AI will improve. Under the current approach to AI, that might not be the case, since it could be hitting its limitations and this article may be pointing out a symptom of those limitations.
You’re obviously not interacting with AI much. It is improving, and at an alarming rate. I’m astounded at the difference between AI now vs 3 years ago. They’re moving to new generations in a matter of months.
My point is that the rate of improvement is slowing down. Also, its capabilities are often overblown. On the surface it does something amazing, but then flaws are pointed out by those who have a better understanding of the subject matter, then those flaws are excused with fluff words like “hallucinations”.
All it needs to do is produce less flaws than the average human. It’s already passed that mark for many general use cases (which many people said would never happen). The criticism is now moving to more and more specialized work, but the AI continues to improve in those areas as well.
/S is mandatory
Because otherwise it would be totally believable
…
…
/s