Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 234 posts

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#101

Post by papercrane »

ColdStream wrote: post #96
papercrane wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's when the models outputs are connected to sources. So for example, you might have a company chatbot that responds with a summary of a Confluence page it was trained on and a link to the source. Doesn't eliminate hallucinations, but it does reduce them and gives you a chance to verify.

That works ok until the citation material ends up with LLM output being fed in. Already there are many examples of this happening.

Yes, the trick is having a "ground-truth" KB it can link to, and trying to avoid citogensis from happening. I'm not sure if it's a technique that's every going to scale because of that.

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#102

Post by mapontosevenths »

an0malous wrote: post #71
parl_match wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

responding "if you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it" really sets people off. they get very mad and ive had some even use ai to tell me why that's wrong. what differentiates you? you could tell me "type xyz into chatgpt" or even share a structured document link from their site. but when you're copy/pasting, then you're basically useless in the equation.

> responding "if you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it" really sets people off That’s crazy, it seems like such an obviously fair policy to me. They rarely even read their own generated text. I don’t understand this mentality

Another human being took time from their life to try and help you

It wasn't as much time as you felt entitled to from them, so you responded by minimizing their contribution and being condescending. That upset them.

The problem here was not the other person.

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#103

Post by Madmallard »

reticulates wrote: post #9

Advice and information subreddits have gone to shit because of AI usage. A large number of people seem to think that when someone asks a question, what they really want is not someone with direct knowledge, but instead someone to relay the question to ChatGPT and post the result as if it is their own hard earned knowledge and insight. I have no idea about the quality of this research but in the real world (well, real…

Reddit has been trash for a very long time. But you know it's worse, because you get punished for criticizing AI comments on those subreddits.

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#104

Post by functionmouse »

reticulates wrote: post #9

Advice and information subreddits have gone to shit because of AI usage. A large number of people seem to think that when someone asks a question, what they really want is not someone with direct knowledge, but instead someone to relay the question to ChatGPT and post the result as if it is their own hard earned knowledge and insight. I have no idea about the quality of this research but in the real world (well, real…

And let's not forget that the bots doing most of the upvoting and downvoting are more likely to upvote bot comments, driving the algorithm.

The internet as a public forum is dead. And given the purpose of something is what it does, this is the true goal of AI. I'm certain blowing up the internet benefits very many wealthy and powerful people.

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#105

Post by antisthenes »

wccrawford wrote: post #12
reticulates wrote: post #9

Advice and information subreddits have gone to shit because of AI usage. A large number of people seem to think that when someone asks a question, what they really want is not someone with direct knowledge, but instead someone to relay the question to ChatGPT and post the result as if it is their own hard earned knowledge and insight. I have no idea about the quality of this research but in the real world (well, real…

I think some may think they're helping like that, but I'm sure there are quite a few who enjoy the feeling of being a notable figure in the community because they answer so many questions. These people have always existed and gave bad answers, but now they can do it so much faster , and with so much less actual thinking.

Do you consider the possibility that some of those people gave good answers?

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#106

Post by dylan604 »

recursive wrote: post #73
ls-a wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The anti AI wave still has so much work to do. Today I saw a duckduckgo ad selling how you can opt out of AI. This is the first ad I've seen suggesting the possibility that someone might not want to be maxing out AI in every possible way. This after seeing probably thousands of ads reference AI.

> you can opt out of AI.

Even that is problematic for me. How about let someone opt-in if they want it? If they don't, then no additional action is necessary

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#107

Post by kaashif »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #102
an0malous wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> responding "if you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it" really sets people off That’s crazy, it seems like such an obviously fair policy to me. They rarely even read their own generated text. I don’t understand this mentality

Another human being took time from their life to try and help you It wasn't as much time as you felt entitled to from them, so you responded by minimizing their contribution and being condescending. That upset them. The problem here was not the other person.

Someone is drowning and calls for help.

I throw a bucket of chum into the water and walk away, putting my headphones on.

Well I did take the time to help, better than nothing, right?

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#108

Post by beepbooptheory »

slibhb wrote: post #95
tsimionescu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are textbooks relevant here? Even if you repeated the experiment with a textbook instead of the AI and got the same result, what conclusion would you draw from this? The general conclusion of the study seems to be "giving people access to authoritative-seeming but wrong tools for answering questions outside their area of expertise reduces their ability to say they don't know the answer, even when the answer is wr…

> but also don't give them AI for things they don't know, perhaps The study doesn't show that at all. It didn't test actual AI. They could have tested a cohort of subjects with access to actual ChatGPT. Ask yourself why they didn't.

Because this is exactly what they controlled for. FTA:

> The researchers used Step 3.5 Flash, a model that was usually wrong on these questions, precisely so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool.

(emphasis mine)

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#109

Post by senshan »

This could serve as a beacon for those who still care:

Richard Feynman: "I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something, how careful you have to be about checking the experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo

Re: AI advice made people less accurate but more confident – sudy

#110

Post by wonnage »

slibhb wrote: post #95
tsimionescu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are textbooks relevant here? Even if you repeated the experiment with a textbook instead of the AI and got the same result, what conclusion would you draw from this? The general conclusion of the study seems to be "giving people access to authoritative-seeming but wrong tools for answering questions outside their area of expertise reduces their ability to say they don't know the answer, even when the answer is wr…

> but also don't give them AI for things they don't know, perhaps The study doesn't show that at all. It didn't test actual AI. They could have tested a cohort of subjects with access to actual ChatGPT. Ask yourself why they didn't.

They provide a sample of hallucinated answers from ChatGPT at the end of the study.
Post reply on HN