Earlier quoted context omitted.
1.3% isn't great. I'd rather just go, and pay, directly to trusted news sources. Everyone has different tolerance for falsehoods and priorities I guess.
What's the error rate for human journalists? Based on my experience, I'd guess it's much higher than 1.3%.
Working with The Associated Press to provide fresh results for the Gemini app
31–40 of 68 posts
Re: Working with The Associated Press to provide fresh results for the Gemini app
#32As someone who works in the news industry I find it pretty sad that we've just capitulated to big tech on this one. There are countless examples of AI summaries getting things catastrophically wrong, but I guess Google has long since decided that pushing AI was more important than accurate or relevant results, as can also be seen with their search results that simply omit parts of your query. I can only hope this dat…
Gemini is the leading model with the lowest hallucination rate: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-ai-models-with-the-l... I would expect that number to go down from 1.3% to below 1% over the course of the year. There's always a chance what you're reading is wrong - due to purposeful deception, negligence, or accident. Realistically, hardly anything is 100% accurate besides math.
I am quite certain my personal hallucinations level is more than 1.3%, obviously we want our machines to be better than us, but my doctor once said folic acid is not a vitamin.
Re: Working with The Associated Press to provide fresh results for the Gemini app
#33As someone who works in the news industry I find it pretty sad that we've just capitulated to big tech on this one. There are countless examples of AI summaries getting things catastrophically wrong, but I guess Google has long since decided that pushing AI was more important than accurate or relevant results, as can also be seen with their search results that simply omit parts of your query. I can only hope this dat…
Journalism is dying, killed by its own excesses and by the internet. Google is offering it life support. The other option is death.
Re: Working with The Associated Press to provide fresh results for the Gemini app
#34Re: Working with The Associated Press to provide fresh results for the Gemini app
#35As someone who works in the news industry I find it pretty sad that we've just capitulated to big tech on this one. There are countless examples of AI summaries getting things catastrophically wrong, but I guess Google has long since decided that pushing AI was more important than accurate or relevant results, as can also be seen with their search results that simply omit parts of your query. I can only hope this dat…
These models will interject information from their training whether or it is relevant or not. This is just due to the nature of how these models work.
Anyone trying to argue that it doesn't happen that often or anything is missing the key problem. Sure it may be right most of the time, but all that does is build a false sense of security and eventually you stop double checking or clicking through to a source. Whether it is a search result, manipulating data, or whatever.
This is made infinitely worse when these summaries are one and done, a single user is going to see the output and no one else will see it to fact check. It isn't like an article being wrong that everyone reading it is reading the same article, can then comment that something is wrong, it get updated, and so on and so forth. That feedback loop is non-existent with these models
Re: Working with The Associated Press to provide fresh results for the Gemini app
#36As someone who works in the news industry I find it pretty sad that we've just capitulated to big tech on this one. There are countless examples of AI summaries getting things catastrophically wrong, but I guess Google has long since decided that pushing AI was more important than accurate or relevant results, as can also be seen with their search results that simply omit parts of your query. I can only hope this dat…
Gemini is the leading model with the lowest hallucination rate: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-ai-models-with-the-l... I would expect that number to go down from 1.3% to below 1% over the course of the year. There's always a chance what you're reading is wrong - due to purposeful deception, negligence, or accident. Realistically, hardly anything is 100% accurate besides math.
I work with investigative reporters on stories that take many months to produce. Every time we receive a leak there is an extensive process of proving public interest before we can even start looking at the material. Once we can see it in we have to be extremely careful with everything we note down to make sure that our work isn't seen as prejudiced if legal discovery happens. We're constantly going back and forth with our editorial legal team to make sure what we're saying is fair and accurate. And in the end, the people we're reporting are given a chance to refute any of the facts we're about to present. Any mistakes can result in legal action that can ruin the lives of reporters and shut down companies.
Now, imagine I were to go to a reporter who has spent 6 months working on a story about, for example, a high profile celebrity sexually assaulted multiple women, how the royal family hides their wealth and are exempt from laws, or how multinational corporations use legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes, and said, "oh, 1% of people reading this will likely be given some totally made up details".
Given that stories often have more than a million impressions, this would lead tens of thousands of people with potentially libellous "hallucinations".
It simply should not be allowed.
LLMs have their place, for sure, but presenting the news is not it.
Re: Working with The Associated Press to provide fresh results for the Gemini app
#37As someone who works in the news industry I find it pretty sad that we've just capitulated to big tech on this one. There are countless examples of AI summaries getting things catastrophically wrong, but I guess Google has long since decided that pushing AI was more important than accurate or relevant results, as can also be seen with their search results that simply omit parts of your query. I can only hope this dat…
Re: Working with The Associated Press to provide fresh results for the Gemini app
#38As someone who works in the news industry I find it pretty sad that we've just capitulated to big tech on this one. There are countless examples of AI summaries getting things catastrophically wrong, but I guess Google has long since decided that pushing AI was more important than accurate or relevant results, as can also be seen with their search results that simply omit parts of your query. I can only hope this dat…
Re: Working with The Associated Press to provide fresh results for the Gemini app
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
1.3% isn't great. I'd rather just go, and pay, directly to trusted news sources. Everyone has different tolerance for falsehoods and priorities I guess.
Anything other than 0% is borderline immoral. Imagine sending a push notification to somebody's phone with a completely made-up headline summary. Even if it happens once in a hundred times, that's too much. Things like that slowly but surely erode trust and make it harder and harder to trust anything that's generated by AI, especially when it comes to news, where trustworthiness is essential, and probably the main re…
I bet you think the news is accurate all other times. It’s called “Gell-Mann Amnesia”
Re: Working with The Associated Press to provide fresh results for the Gemini app
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gemini is the leading model with the lowest hallucination rate: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-ai-models-with-the-l... I would expect that number to go down from 1.3% to below 1% over the course of the year. There's always a chance what you're reading is wrong - due to purposeful deception, negligence, or accident. Realistically, hardly anything is 100% accurate besides math.
I think people really don't understand the effort, care and risk that goes into producing quality reporting. I work with investigative reporters on stories that take many months to produce. Every time we receive a leak there is an extensive process of proving public interest before we can even start looking at the material. Once we can see it in we have to be extremely careful with everything we note down to make sur…