Post by yamanhosen5657 on Mar 6, 2024 10:30:44 GMT
Google really nicely demonstrated this with its big demo of Bard. One of the suggested prompts was: "What new discoveries from the James Webb Space Telescope can I tell my 9 year old about?" In response, Bard offered three suggestions, one of which said: "JWST took the very first pictures of a planet outside of our solar system." And while this sounds exactly like the kind of thing a space telescope would do, it's not quite true: the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope (VLT) took one in 2004. CNET had things go even worse. Of 77 AI-written finance stories quietly published on its website, it had to issue corrections in 41 of them, including basic explainers like "What is Compound Interest?" and "Does a Home Equity Loan Affect Private Mortgage Insurance?" Supposedly the articles were "assisted by an AI engine and reviewed, fact-checked and edited by our editorial staff." But clearly, that isn't what happened.
The examples extend to marketing too. There are plenty of ways AI can fit into a content generation pipeline, but if you credulously publish whatever the bots create, you're very likely to find factual mistakes. This Panama mobile number list is especially important when you're writing about a new product, service, or tool that won't be well represented in the training data. At launch, Bing's AI features claimed that a pet hair vacuum cleaner had a 16-foot cord—despite being a handheld model. If you're asking it to describe the product you're trying to sell, expect it to make up plausible but completely fictional features.
All this should serve as a warning not to let AI-powered tools work away unsupervised. OpenAI says GPT-4 is better at not making things up, but it still warns users that it can, and that folks should continue to be careful in high-stakes situations. Over-relying on it as a research tool From the start, ChatGPT has been heralded as an alternative to search—and, in particular, Google. Its short summary answers are clearly presented, super coherent, and not laden down with ads. It's why Microsoft is adding it to Bing. And while ChatGPT (and Bing) are good at summarizing relatively simple information and responding to clear fact-based questions, they present every answer with authority and certainty. It's easy to convince yourself that what they're saying must be correct, even if it isn't.
The examples extend to marketing too. There are plenty of ways AI can fit into a content generation pipeline, but if you credulously publish whatever the bots create, you're very likely to find factual mistakes. This Panama mobile number list is especially important when you're writing about a new product, service, or tool that won't be well represented in the training data. At launch, Bing's AI features claimed that a pet hair vacuum cleaner had a 16-foot cord—despite being a handheld model. If you're asking it to describe the product you're trying to sell, expect it to make up plausible but completely fictional features.
All this should serve as a warning not to let AI-powered tools work away unsupervised. OpenAI says GPT-4 is better at not making things up, but it still warns users that it can, and that folks should continue to be careful in high-stakes situations. Over-relying on it as a research tool From the start, ChatGPT has been heralded as an alternative to search—and, in particular, Google. Its short summary answers are clearly presented, super coherent, and not laden down with ads. It's why Microsoft is adding it to Bing. And while ChatGPT (and Bing) are good at summarizing relatively simple information and responding to clear fact-based questions, they present every answer with authority and certainty. It's easy to convince yourself that what they're saying must be correct, even if it isn't.