I continue to be negative about generative AI assistants insofar as every time someone has written a piece of any length "co-written by an AI" it has all sorts of errors I point out the author hadn't even noticed were there
Most irritatingly is that MULTIPLE TIMES people have written drafts about my work that simply injected and made up history. If they had just published them, that history would be cyclically referenced in the future as if fact
That kind of thing just happens all the time now
like this
reshared this
Christine Lemmer-Webber
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Study after study also shows that AI assistants erode the development of critical thinking skills and knowledge *retention*. People, finding information isn't the biggest missing skillset in our population, it's CRITICAL THINKING, so this is fucked up
AI assistants also introduce more errors at a high volume, and harder to spot too
microsoft.com/en-us/research/u…
slejournal.springeropen.com/ar…
resources.uplevelteam.com/gen-…
techrepublic.com/article/ai-ge…
arxiv.org/abs/2211.03622
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/…
AI-Generated Code is Causing Outages and Security Issues in Businesses
Fiona Jackson (TechRepublic)reshared this
Christine Lemmer-Webber, CaveDave, tootbrute, Paul Shryock, Jaime Soriano, Kathy Reid, Ω 🌍 Gus Posey, hex, AI6YR Ben, Rickard Sundin, Douglas McMillan, Peter Butler, Juan Carlos Muñoz, Christy Marx Rambling Writer, Alex@rtnVFRmedia Suffolk UK, Internet Rando, Geoff Berner, Mark Dennehy, manisha, Carina C. Zona, Joan, but festive 🎅🏼🎄, ✌︎ marie molins, The Witch of Crow Briar, Sensible Crone, Hugs4friends ♾🇺🇦 🇵🇸😷, PersonalEscrito, Debbie Goldsmith 🏳️⚧️♾️🇺🇦, db Slava Ukraini, lj·rk→⁽³⁹ᶜ³⁾, Cat 🐈🥗 (D.Burch), LAYERED, Dendan Setia (Nins), Claudius Link, BadWoof, Lesley Carhart, Kilian Evang, Sarah Dal, Jens Finkhäuser, cyplo, Kalle Hallivuori, stony kark, martin lentink 🇪🇺 🇺🇦📎, austra_lopiteco, Gurre Vildskägg, Johan K Sch, beka valentine, Glyph, the esoteric programmer, Journeys In Film, Uckermark MacGyver, Andrew, Baldur Bjarnason, Joe Lanman and Shannon Prickett reshared this.
interepisteme
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •verify your kira account
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •PedestrianError
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Reay
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •@hacks4pancakes Hear hear.
I’d been using perplexity.ai for a few months — it was recommended in an article I read for actually supplying straight-forward answers to queries instead of supplying a list of related articles or topics, and usually did so in satisfying ways — but I had a few results from it that were blatantly wrong with an even basic knowledge of the topic. Which then eroded any confidence about how correct it was about subjects I don’t know the answers to, which is of course a lot of what one would query.
That was when I deleted it.
Chris Hanson
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Sensitive content
Jürgen Wilhelm
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Before AI we had to collaborate with people, who were lazy thinkers, bad data analysts and liars. Now we have to collaborate with people, who are lazy thinkers, bad data analysts and liars - and an AI, which is a lazy thinker, a bad data analyst and a liar.
Nicely done humanity.
Job
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •"and harder to spot too"
This is a thing that I feel is underestimated by so many people: these tools are trained to generate output that is as *convincing* as possible, regardless of whether the output is *correct*.
reshared this
Christine Lemmer-Webber and Jayne reshared this.
AL
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Indieterminacy
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •OwOday
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Todd A. Jacobs | Pragmatic Cybersecurity
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Sadly, this is because #LLMs (which most people think are AI instead of just a particular tool in the toolset) are primaily designed to "fill in the blank" with the most statistically likely words.
Being a very computationally expensive type of Mad Libs makes them sound convincing even when they are spouting nonsense. People can do this too, but LLMs often excel at it.
AI is great at a lot of things. As a natural language search of a given data set, it can be very effective and a heck of a lot easier to use than a search engine or regular expression, both of which require you to already have a good idea of what keywords you need to look for to find the information.
Even the new chain-of-thought systems are really just layering another pass through the LLM to turn its search strategy into natural language. It's not really #XAI yet. Someday, but not today.
I'm glad you're calling out the critical thinking part! Using current AI
... Show more...Sadly, this is because #LLMs (which most people think are AI instead of just a particular tool in the toolset) are primaily designed to "fill in the blank" with the most statistically likely words.
Being a very computationally expensive type of Mad Libs makes them sound convincing even when they are spouting nonsense. People can do this too, but LLMs often excel at it.
AI is great at a lot of things. As a natural language search of a given data set, it can be very effective and a heck of a lot easier to use than a search engine or regular expression, both of which require you to already have a good idea of what keywords you need to look for to find the information.
Even the new chain-of-thought systems are really just layering another pass through the LLM to turn its search strategy into natural language. It's not really #XAI yet. Someday, but not today.
I'm glad you're calling out the critical thinking part! Using current AI tools is a lot like using a calculator: it can make things easier, but you have to already know what you're trying to do and have at least a ballpark idea of what a valid answer should be to use one. Metaphors are tricky, but "AI as a calculator" is my current go-to for explaining when not to use one.
Adrien Plazas
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Tóth Gábor Baltazár reshared this.
Hieronymous Smash
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Ellyse likes this.
reshared this
Christine Lemmer-Webber and JWcph, Radicalized By Decency reshared this.
JWcph, Radicalized By Decency
in reply to Hieronymous Smash • • •One of the reasons ppl think it's faster is they don't know the work - e.g. copywriting takes about 1-1.5hrs to write one page of text, most people can barely type that fast 😝
seeh #UnPlugTrump #SL5aura
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Maike
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Christy Marx Rambling Writer reshared this.
Ken Larson
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Excellent observations and entirely consistent with an article by Nic Coppings recently in Washington Technology:
"In our quest for speed and scalability, we’ve replaced empathy, trust, and authentic connection with CRM automation and AI tools.
The Microsoft “goldfish study” revealed that humans now have an average attention span of 8 seconds.
Whether meeting clients or building professional relationships, people want to be seen, heard, and valued."
washingtontechnology.com/opini…
COMMENTARY: How to build a winning relationship in the digital age
Nic Coppings (Washington Technology)anesthetized
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Daedalean
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Alison Meeks
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Phracker
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Peter Butler
in reply to Phracker • • •sabik
in reply to Peter Butler • • •@peterbutler @Phracker2Art
Indeed, convincing people is one of the few things that LLM chatbots are reported to be better at than not using them at all
So if someone wants to convince people of something, and they're unscrupulous enough to disregard the collateral damage...
Interpipes 💙
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Georgiana Brummell
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • •Григорий Клюшников
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Mark R. Stoneman
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Thomas Traynor
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Tim Richards
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •naturzukunft
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •Unfortunately, many people don't think about what they are doing.
And using AI without thinking is very dangerous.
Bill Seitz
in reply to Christine Lemmer-Webber • • •webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/Gell…
Gell-Mann Amnesia
WebSeitz