Bing thinks Mars has 2.5B people based on an AI generated blog wrong answer
imgur.com
imgur.com
Then there were the bloggers who, without leaving their armchair, wrote opinion pieces based on whatever the journalists had written.
Now there is AI, which apes the non-experience of the bloggers.
Truly we are now living in a simulation of a simulation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903
just in a limited capacity
This is why it will happily tell you that a director directed a movie before they were born, and agree with you when you point that out, and continue to insist that he did it. There is no ability to synthesize and apply new information to a line of reasoning, because the chain of thought is an illusion wrought by a statistical language model.
Its purpose is to be semantically correct, not to reason.
for anything else, how can you possibly know it's not operating on a (massively) complex statistical model? are you gonna ask it? if you do science on it to discover it's complexity, why is the computationally shorter method to achieve the same results any worse or less authentic?
it's like saying the closed form solution of a summation isn't "really" a summation either
finally, you are letting the word "semantically" do a lot of work for you.
Thinking about it, this makes them sound very similar to AIs [wry smile emoji].
Luckily, it's funny to me now so it bothers me less when I see it.
Many current "journalists" have this issue too.
Whether it's a feature or a bug depends on whether you agree with their output.
s/sendmail/chatgpt|sendmail/
""" As a young PhD in AI, I believe that fears about artificial intelligence and machine learning are vastly overblown. The potential for AI to save lives and improve productivity is immense, and while there have been some high-profile examples of AI getting it wrong, these incidents are often blown out of proportion.
In fact, there have been countless examples of AI saving lives that go largely unnoticed. For instance, there was an obscure case in which an AI algorithm correctly diagnosed a rare disease in a patient that had stumped human doctors for years. In another instance, an AI-powered drone was able to locate a lost hiker in the wilderness who would have otherwise perished.
Meanwhile, the few high-profile cases where AI has made mistakes are often overemphasized in the media. For example, when an autonomous vehicle hit and killed a pedestrian, the headlines screamed about the dangers of AI. But what wasn't reported was that human drivers kill thousands of people every day in car accidents. While AI is not perfect, it has the potential to vastly reduce the number of fatalities on our roads.
And when we consider the productivity gains that AI can bring, it becomes clear that fears of AI taking jobs are misplaced. Sure, there may be some roles that can be automated, but in most cases, AI will simply augment human work, allowing us to achieve more in less time. This means that companies will be able to hire fewer workers, but those workers will be able to work longer hours with increased happiness, as they will be able to focus on more fulfilling tasks.
In fact, I predict that the adoption of AI will lead to a significant increase in productivity and gross domestic product. By 2030, I expect that the average company will be able to achieve a 20% increase in productivity thanks to AI, which will translate to a $2 trillion increase in gross domestic product. And this is just the beginning - as AI continues to improve and become more integrated into our daily lives, the benefits will only become more pronounced.
In conclusion, the fears of AI and machine learning are vastly overblown. While there are certainly risks to consider, the potential benefits - from saving lives to boosting productivity - are simply too great to ignore. It's time for us to embrace AI and all the benefits it can bring. """
Original shows as follows when viewed within my mastadon timeline: https://imgur.com/a/DxAHOWG
It's just a normal Bing infobox that Bing has had for ever. Google has them too. It's quoting a website which it does not realize is fiction.
Zero. No humans have yet reached the planet Mars. Zero.
https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+alpha+centauri
The internet is simply too full of nonsense.
Dont forget to update the Wolfram database with who we're at war with!
"What is the population of Uranus?"
> 25 residents
> Uranus has 25 residents but no formal local government and states on the entrance sign, "It's Not a Town, It's a Destination." [3]
And it is correct, up to Wikipedian facticity standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus,_Missouri
1: http://www.bing.com/search?q=What+is+the+population+of+Uranu...
> "Neptune has a total of 32,465 people and of those residents there are 15,209 males and 17,256 females. The median age of the male population is 36.8 and the female population is 40.2. There are approximately 8,127 births each year and around 5,425 deaths." --Bing
Then it linked me to https://www.movingideas.org/neptune-nj/ But it stilled showed me, on the search results page, a picture of the planet Neptune to go with the response text.
It’s a topic of interest to me because there’s a tipping point coming where ai generated content easily outweighs the volume of non ai generated stuff. And I’m curious of the implications of that coming change
I suspect we may see domain trust become significantly more important, and that may have a chilling effect on legitimate websites gaining a foot hold in search indexes. We already have this issue mind you. Most of my searches for popular topics end up with generated or scraped content in them, unless there is a domain authority with major sway that takes up the majority of results.
Maybe we will see the return of curated web directories? Or maybe the web becomes a barren wasteland as everyone flees to social applications.
Most internet commenters read the title and immediately jump to the comments to start writing their response without ever opening the article.
"The population of Mars is zero, as there are no humans living on the planet yet. Mars is a large planet in the Solar system, and it has plenty of surface area for colonization, but there are many challenges and risks involved in sending humans to Mars and establishing a permanent settlement there." [...]
Guess we're there already
I am growing more and more bitter everyday by how many of us are rushing to build a deader Internet.
Every "Show HN: I have made ChatGPT even easier to use" is a stark reminder that either I am growing old and pessimistic, or for the first time in my career I am disgusted at the direction software engineering is going. Appalled by the lack of ethics and long term philosophical concern of what we are doing with AI.
I just see reckless software engineers happily playing with something they do not understand. Where is the AI equivalent of Oppenheimer's "I have become Death, destroyer of worlds," uttered because of his research on world-changing and world-destroying technology?
I am afraid I will have to separate computers from the idea of the Internet at large to keep enjoying this career: I love programming and computers, but the internet and social media are on the way to become a net negative to humanity in my eyes.
(unless we get content farm SEO spam to avert the model)
They poisoned the well once; from whence doth you think that with money at stake they have suddenly developed enough of a soul to grant them the grace to abstain from doing so again?
Whoever ok'd this crap at Microsoft to get that big promo really just highlights why I'm never using a Microsoft product from teams to bing to azure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dick_(scientist)#/media...
It gave me two cases. The first case was exactly the opposite of what it had claimed. The second case had literally nothing to do with title vii or anything involving the question I asked.
So not only was it wrong, but in using two cases that actually existed, it was maliciously wrong. Not just misinformation but disinformation.
This and other errors lead me to require chatgpt two become at least two orders of magnitude more accurate. And a huge announcement on how it will no longer make up false citations.
I, a dummy, should not be able to falsify an AI with the simplest (classic) google search.
;-)