Platforms are finally recognizing that people don’t want to consume AI slop. A growing number of sites and apps now have tools and policies to flag, label, and ban AI-generated content.
ChatGPT and others have a ~ 90% and more hallucination rate on questions it wasnt trained on. You’re playing a game of luck using gpt and others for knowledge that you’re not verifying by source.
Somewhat tailored response per your username: Anything the ministry of truth decides should not be part of the training set.
But more generally, even in things like neurodivergence, lots of questions you could ask that would be in the bounds of “guesstimation” by professionals. The problem is these LLM will spout pure utter highly-believably-confident snake oil with the tiniest little legal microscopic fineprint on the side of the html webpage that you can never scroll to saying “AI responses can be wrong”.
For me, the mere fact that you have a nicely worded source of information that, depending if you’re lucky with your question, is pure scientific fact, or utter maddening bullshit, makes me terrified to use it.
For me, I just got used to it being “mostly” correct. Im not betting my life on these things. I use them for recepies and im not putting poison in my food if it would say so. :)
Funny you should use that example, because a farmer destroyed twenty five acres of food crops by poisoning them because an AI told him to (thankfully killing the plants before they could end up on someone’s plate…)
BTW, not to pick on you, but it’s “recipes”, not “recepies”.
The warnings are prominently displayed and I’m sorry but we can’t just toss tech out because some people are stupid. I get wrong answers from professionals, too.
ChatGPT and others have a ~ 90% and more hallucination rate on questions it wasnt trained on. You’re playing a game of luck using gpt and others for knowledge that you’re not verifying by source.
What content is it not trained on?
Somewhat tailored response per your username: Anything the ministry of truth decides should not be part of the training set.
But more generally, even in things like neurodivergence, lots of questions you could ask that would be in the bounds of “guesstimation” by professionals. The problem is these LLM will spout pure utter highly-believably-confident snake oil with the tiniest little legal microscopic fineprint on the side of the html webpage that you can never scroll to saying “AI responses can be wrong”.
For me, the mere fact that you have a nicely worded source of information that, depending if you’re lucky with your question, is pure scientific fact, or utter maddening bullshit, makes me terrified to use it.
For me, I just got used to it being “mostly” correct. Im not betting my life on these things. I use them for recepies and im not putting poison in my food if it would say so. :)
Funny you should use that example, because a farmer destroyed twenty five acres of food crops by poisoning them because an AI told him to (thankfully killing the plants before they could end up on someone’s plate…)
BTW, not to pick on you, but it’s “recipes”, not “recepies”.
The warnings are prominently displayed and I’m sorry but we can’t just toss tech out because some people are stupid. I get wrong answers from professionals, too.