And if you put teach a med student the same thing, they’ll also tell people it’s real.
What’s the point?
Scientists invented a fake disease. AI told people it was real
91–97 of 97 posts
Re: Scientists invented a fake disease. AI told people it was real
#92You’ve seen people game adsense It’s gunna be even wilder when people realise they have an incentive to seed fake information on the internet to game AI product recommendations I’ve already bought stuff based off of an AI suggestion, I didn’t even consider it would be so easy to influence the suggestion. Just two research papers? Mad.
It’s not mad… it’s the same damn thing as taking Wikipedia articles as Truth without looking at the citations and verifying them.
AI research is for research, not for blindly accepting. If you’re looking for Truth you need to institute a gatekeeper that does that homework for you.
Re: Scientists invented a fake disease. AI told people it was real
#93And if you put teach a med student the same thing, they’ll also tell people it’s real. What’s the point?
Hopefully a med student would notice that the paper explicitly says multiple times it’s fake.
Re: Scientists invented a fake disease. AI told people it was real
#94I'm not especially defending AI, but isn't this information like that one time a professor changed the content on Wikipedia to play a big 'gotcha' on his students? Instead of proving that Wikipedia is "bad", that professor didn't realize he proved that Wikipedia is working as intended: if you write something wrong in Wikipedia, over a certain period of time (yes, it can be long, I know), it will be corrected. About t…
Did the fake Wikipedia article explicitly say that it’s fake?
Re: Scientists invented a fake disease. AI told people it was real
#95I'm not especially defending AI, but isn't this information like that one time a professor changed the content on Wikipedia to play a big 'gotcha' on his students? Instead of proving that Wikipedia is "bad", that professor didn't realize he proved that Wikipedia is working as intended: if you write something wrong in Wikipedia, over a certain period of time (yes, it can be long, I know), it will be corrected. About t…
Did the fake Wikipedia article explicitly say that it’s fake?
It's not what happened, the professor had changed details in an exiting articles.
Details that were of course corrected later on
Re: Scientists invented a fake disease. AI told people it was real
#96It seems that sites as Wikipedia (including their faults) serves as a good checkpoint of LLMs results.
Re: Scientists invented a fake disease. AI told people it was real
#97It sounds like there wasn't really a counter narrative for the models to learn from. This feature of how llms accumulate information is already being gamed by seeding the internet with preferred narratives. I'm not sure how many Medium articles, blog posts and reddit threads I need to put out before grok starts telling everyone my widget is the best one ever made, but it's a lot cheaper than advertising.
Can a model not just ignor all things that have no counter-argument by default? Like - if there are not flat earthers, widly debunked, drop the idea of a spherical earth? It only exists if it was fought over?
what if it's something correct that doesn't have a counterargument, like "photons with a 450nm wavelength are perceived as red by the average human eye"
And how would it know if a counterargument exists anyway, and if it actually does make sense?