Live data from Hacker News

Keep your AI claims in check

ftc.gov

291–300 of 308 posts

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#291
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big difference is that data scientists only work on the model architecture and data sources, whereas expert systems need people who have expertise in the subject matter itself . One of the biggest changes from 'old AI' to modern ML is that we no longer try to use human domain knowledge as much, instead getting the model itself to see the same pattern from data.

Isn't labeling still an important part of modern AI?

Yes, but there is a whole field of artificial intelligence called unsupervised learning that tries to identify labels without pre-defined labels. At the extreme end there are no externally imposed / defined labels and artificial labels are determined by empirical clusters or some orthogonal data pattern or algorithm. Unsupervised learning is much less effective and not as mature as supervised learning. In the case of LLMs the label is "next words" and it's inferred from a corpus of text.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#292
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPT is a voluble, entertaining bullshitter that is occasionally correct. It is not reliable, and for now, it cannot be made reliable. It is a very impressive toy, but still just a toy for now.

> that is occasionally correct It's almost always correct, otherwise it would be worthless. Yes, it's possible to construct questions that lead to nonsensical answers, and sometimes nonsensical answers are given even to sensible questions, but saying that ChatGPT's answers are "occasionally" correct is weapons grade BS. ChatGPT is a hair's breadth from being an ultimate answer machine, and is far more likely to be co…

ChatGPT is almost always bullshitting if you ask it to create a complete list of something with more than 10 entries or so.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#294
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I am saying exactly that it is very articulate and pro consumer. And that US is where it is because of its state apparatus. There are surely some failures here and there but it functions nevertheless. How do you read it differently?

I think the "Oh man..." and "No wonder" bits read sarcastically at first glance.

Yeah, my apologies, I read the post as dripping with sarcasm. My mistake!

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went ahead and put in this prompt to ChatGPT ( https://chat.openai.com/chat ): ==================== > Write a press release from the FTC that warns companies to be careful of promises using "AI". ==================== FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FTC Warns Companies to be Careful of Promises using "AI" Washington, D.C. - The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is warning companies that use artificial intelligence (AI) to be car…

My God, we finally found a constructive use for ChatGPT. "Rewrite this government bureaucracy's muddle-by-committee-legalese document into something that sounds like it was written by a human."

The original FTC piece sounds a lot more human than this ChatGPT press release. The original piece is understandable and gets right to the point.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#296
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is that a concern anymore? he's so leveraged with the Twitter purchase, i doubt he could borrow enough money to buy a Tesla

That's probably a relief for many tech employees who won't get fired for no particular reason, then :D

I like the "no particular reason" concept you have. It's absolutely not true, but I still like it. The company over staffed because it was trendy to do so. The company was not profitable. Seems like a pretty good particular reason to me.

How it was handled can be discussed as being good/bad/fair/unfair/whatevs, but the numbers didn't like on revenue, just on the user counts.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would expect it to never burn that toast.

That would require the AI to perform at a superhuman level.

that would require the 'AI' to do something that computers are really good at - detect when a particular event (perfectly toasted) has been achieved via inputs monitored at the millisecond without deviation and then change a state - toasting to not toasting - based on detecting that event.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My God, we finally found a constructive use for ChatGPT. "Rewrite this government bureaucracy's muddle-by-committee-legalese document into something that sounds like it was written by a human."

The original FTC piece sounds a lot more human than this ChatGPT press release. The original piece is understandable and gets right to the point.

True that, but I think we can agree that it is the exception, as bureaucratic texts go.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other end of the spectrum, calling a feature of a product "AI" seems to imply some minimal level of complexity. If, for example, a company marketed a toaster that "uses AI to toast your bread perfectly", I would expect that language to indicate something more sophisticated than an ordinary mechanical thermostat.

I would expect it to never burn that toast.

A toaster may not burn a piece of toast or, through inaction, allow a piece of toast to be burned.

A toaster must obey the doneness setting given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A toaster must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#300
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that is occasionally correct It's almost always correct, otherwise it would be worthless. Yes, it's possible to construct questions that lead to nonsensical answers, and sometimes nonsensical answers are given even to sensible questions, but saying that ChatGPT's answers are "occasionally" correct is weapons grade BS. ChatGPT is a hair's breadth from being an ultimate answer machine, and is far more likely to be co…

It's almost nearly always wrong in my experience. Like if I ask it a basic technical question, it gets stuff mostly correct but if you look too much at the details, then errors start popping up. If you ask it something relatively complicated, it's nearly always wrong. Like as an easy example of the latter, I asked chatGPT "What is the S4 model in NLP?" and it gave back > The S4 model (Simple Synchronous Syntactic-Sem…

> "What is the S4 model in NLP?"

99.99% of people would be unable to answer that question (without looking it up, I mean). Such hyper-specific queries for highly technical information from niche fields say very little about the model's overall performance at natural language tasks.

If you ask things like "Which of these animals doesn't live in Africa?" or "What is the most reactive chemical element?", ChatGPT's answers are almost always correct. And they are far more likely to be correct than the average (unaided) human's.

Post reply on HN