https://futurism.com/the-byte/government-ai-worse-summarizing

The upshot: these AI summaries were so bad that the assessors agreed that using them could require more work down the line, because of the amount of fact-checking they require. If that’s the case, then the purported upsides of using the technology — cost-cutting and time-saving — are seriously called into question.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    I put the term AI in scare quotes in my first comment because I too am well aware that it’s a misnomer. But it’s the term that everyone knows this technology by (via marketing and such like you said) so it’s easy fall back on that term.

    My primary beef and the main thrust of my argument was exactly that: the primary triumph of “AI” is as a marketing term.

    It does a disservice to research and development of generalized artificial intelligence (which I hope won’t be such a fucking massive waste of resources and such a massive producer of additional carbon waste and other pollution) by jumping the gun and prematurely declaring that “AI” is already here.

    I don’t think the specific term really matters in this context

    I think it does, unfortunately, if only because of how people already take that misleading label and ride it hard.

    we’re not talking about true intelligence, but automation of task work that currently is done by paid human employees.

    Valid discussion for sure, and I wish it could be pried away from the marketing bullshit because it’s really misleading a lot of people, including otherwise educated people that should know better.