• dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Say it with me again now:

    For fact-based applications, the amount of work required to develop and subsequently babysit the LLM to ensure it is always producing accurate output is exactly the same as doing the work yourself in the first place.

    Always, always, always. This is a mathematical law. It doesn’t matter how much you whine or argue, or cite anecdotes about how you totally got ChatGPT or Copilot to generate you some working code that one time. The LLM does not actually have comprehension of its input or output. It doesn’t have comprehension, period. It cannot know when it is wrong. It can’t actually know anything.

    Sure, very sophisticated LLM’s might get it right some of the time, or even a lot of the time in the cases of very specific topics with very good training data. But its accuracy cannot be guaranteed unless you fact-check 100% of its output.

    Underpaid employees were asked to feed published articles from other news services into generative AI tools and spit out paraphrased versions. The team was soon using AI to churn out thousands of articles a day, most of which were never fact-checked by a person. Eventually, per the NYT, the website’s AI tools randomly started assigning employees’ names to AI-generated articles they never touched.

    Yep, that right there. I could have called that before they even started. The shit really hits the fan when the computer is inevitably capable of spouting bullshit far faster than humans are able to review and debunk its output, and that’s only if anyone is actually watching and has their hand on the off switch. Of course, the end goal of these schemes is to be able to fire as much of the human staff as possible, so it ultimately winds up that there is nobody left to actually do the review. And whatever emaciated remains of management are left don’t actually understand how the machine works nor how its output is generated.

    Yeah, I see no flaws in this plan… Carry the fuck on, idiots.

    • KeriKitty (They(/It))@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Did you enjoy humans spouting bullshit faster than humans can debunk it? Well, brace for impact because here comes machine-generated bullshit! Wooooeee’refucked! 🥳

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The cost however is not the same. I can totally see the occasional lawsuit as the cost of doing business for a company that employs AI.

      • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        While that works for “news agencies” it’s a free money glitch when used in a customer support role for the consumer.

        Edit: clarification

        • henfredemars@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Pretty sure an airline was forced to pay out on a fake policy that one of their support bots spouted.

  • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I hope he wins, and the fine makes Microsoft’s eyes water. Everyone need to slow the fuck down with this, and they won’t until there are real painful consequences.

    MS can drop billions on game company acquisitions like it’s no big deal? Cool, give this guy 1 billion dollars for randomly singling him out and automated-accusing him of sex crimes.

    Maybe then all the tech bros might pause for 3 seconds before they keep feeding shit into their models illegally.