In the way
This sums up my experience of companies and products trying to inject AI in to the products I use to communicate with other people. It’s always just in the way, making stupid suggestions.
This would mean a lot more if it happened before the wholesale harvesting of everyone’s work.
But I’m sure Google will put a mighty fine lock on that stable door that the horse bolted from.
This sums up my experience of companies and products trying to inject AI in to the products I use to communicate with other people. It’s always just in the way, making stupid suggestions.
The moment you run LLM generated code, any hallucinated methods will be instantly obvious: you’ll get an error. You can fix that yourself or you can feed the error back into the LLM and watch it correct itself.
Compare this to hallucinations in regular prose, where you need a critical eye, strong intuitions and well developed fact checking skills to avoid sharing information that’s incorrect and directly harmful to your reputation.
With code you get a powerful form of fact checking for free. Run the code, see if it works.
The tech bros advocating for generative AI to take over art are at the same level of cultural refinement as the characters in Severance. They’re creating apps to summarize books to people, tweeting from accounts with Greek statue profile pictures.
GenAI would automate Lumon’s cultural mission, allowing humans to sever themselves from the production of art and culture.
You do not have to use generative AI.
AI itself cannot be held to account.
If you use AI, you are the one who is accountable for whatever you produce with it.
There are contexts in which it is immoral to use generative AI.
Correcting or fact checking generative AI may take longer than just doing a task yourself, or with conventional AI tools.
You do not have to use generative AI.
My main problem with AI is not that that it creates ugly, immoral, boring slop (which it does). Nor even that it disenfranchises artists and impoverishes workers, (though it does that too).
No, my main problem with AI is that its current pitch to the public is suffused with so much unsubstantiated bullshit, that I cannot banish from my thoughts the sight of a well-dressed man peddling a miraculous talking dog.
Also, trust:
They’ve also managed to muddy the waters of online information gathering to the point that that even if we scrubbed every trace of those hallucinations from the internet – a likely impossible task - the resulting lack of trust could never quite be purged. Imagine, if you will, the release of a car which was not only dangerous and unusable in and of itself, but which made people think twice before ever entering any car again, by any manufacturer, so long as they lived. How certain were you, five years ago, that an odd ingredient in an online recipe was merely an idiosyncratic choice by a quirky, or incompetent, chef, rather than a fatal addition by a robot? How certain are you now?
Please read Miriam’s latest blog post.
I’m trying to be open to changing my mind when presented with new evidence.
Naming things is hard, and sometimes harmful.
I listened to a day of talks on AI at UX Brighton, and I came away disappointed by what wasn’t mentioned.
It’s almost as though humans prefer to use post-hoc justifications rather than being rational actors.