81–90 of 152 posts
I look forward to this never happening again and not becoming a massive problem for the next 10 years.
Not to apologize for the irresponsible deployment of this chatbot but it should be noted that the guy got the number from a Google search (think about the results you'd get for "facebook support number"). It's been a massive problem for at least the last 10 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that were true (I don't think it is): The more important distinction between humans and LLMs is accountability. If a customer support agent gives you incorrect information, you can often hold the company liable for it (assuming you can prove it; I suppose there's a reason for why companies prefer certain support channels over others). If an AI "lies" to you, you're largely on your own right now.
Not necessarily. In Canada, a case in February ( https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/techlex/moffatt-v-... ) held that Air Canada could be held responsible for incorrect information about a refund given to a customer by its chatbot. Notwithstanding differences in jurisdiction, applying that idea to this case would rely on finding that Meta owed Gaudreau a duty of care that extended to the Meta AI chatbot. It wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These scam victims never own up to the most important fact - that they themselves give away the keys to the castle. I bet they were wearing a real short skirt, too.
What?
> What he didn't know at the time is there is no phone number for Facebook customer support. Part of the problem here is that Facebook (though in fairness, they are not unique here) has left this traditional path of escalation void, leaving only fake numbers. They don't even have a real number to play a recorded message affirming that there is no ability to call. ETA: For instance, I notice Facebook appears to own th…
Again and again we see that LLMs are great for creative output and terrible for anything where correctness matters. You should only use it for the latter scenarios when generating answers is slow/hard/expensive, but verification of answers is quick/easy/cheap. Probabilistic and non-deterministic answers have their place, but these companies marketing them in products need to do a better job expressing the limitations…
You can use the LLMs for language understand and interpreting questions, but the would need access to databases containing authoritative answers and not answer anything for which they don't have an answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The bad thing is that people still think LLMs can be trusted at all. LLMs are as trustworthy as humans. Humans have been being wrong for about as long as we have been lying. Whether you get information from a human or an LLM, check it. I worry about the people who insist on credible sources rather than checking information for themselves. I think 80% or more of them are trolling me, but there are some who genuinely…
This is not true. Sure, humans can lie or get things wrong. But normal people will also admit when they don't know something. LLMs tend not to admit when they don't know something, and they use an authoritative voice that sounds like they know what they're talking about. To an untrained person, this can easily be misleading.
You'd like to think so, right? However, this isn't really a solid thesis. Decent people will admit when they don't know. Is that normal? I've worked with so many people that just do not fit that definition at all, to the point it just seems like that's the normal way to behave. Maybe I'm jaded grossly overweighting it, but it just seems I have been in way too many meets with too many arguments over something because someone refused to back down and admit their ignorance/arrogance wasted valuable time because of refusal to accept input from others.
Seems like this information came from Quora: https://www.quora.com/Is-1-844-457-1420-really-Facebook-supp... . Screenshot: https://postimg.cc/gallery/2nFq5Cm . I suspect the helpful SEO guy who posted this answer was trying to get more visibility on Quora so answered many questions automatically or semi-automatically without verifying anything. This is the beginning of the post: Ruhul Alom Social Media Marketer at So…
Quora doesn't even pretend to police this kind of thing. Automated moderation might remove it, only after it has been reported. There's far, far too much of it for users to report all of it.
Nobody pays attention to it on Quora, but it's clear that it's out there to poison AI and search engines.
Seems like this information came from Quora: https://www.quora.com/Is-1-844-457-1420-really-Facebook-supp... . Screenshot: https://postimg.cc/gallery/2nFq5Cm . I suspect the helpful SEO guy who posted this answer was trying to get more visibility on Quora so answered many questions automatically or semi-automatically without verifying anything. This is the beginning of the post: Ruhul Alom Social Media Marketer at So…
The "helpful SEO guy" likely is (or was hired by) the scammer. StackOverflow gets lots of fake posts like this promoting numbers. Around tax time there's a lot of Quicken ones.