1. BS Manager jolts down a few lines then AI outputs pompous bullshit from the raw bullshit she wrote.
2. I get the bullshit email and then use AI to distill the bullshit down to the essential bullshit
I'm not anti-AI. I think its going to have a huge impact and soon. But right now it's not good for generating knowledge work.
But the tools don’t do what a lot of people imagine and so we’ll see such misuse be rampant for a long long while.
We don’t take digital pollution or content pollution very seriously yet, but these tools are going to force us to finally do so. There’s a lot of smog coming to our online lives.
Even though I was a skeptic at first, now I am a believer in practical usage of AI. I really struggle with writing CTAs or conclusive remarks. My writing style is dry and I write technical articles in a step by step manner assuming the reader has no to little understanding of the subject matter. I feel like developer do appreciate this writing practice however all long form content need meaningful endings.
I appreciate the help of AI with summarizing, describing what the intended instructions should achieve and telling readers to explore the next step.
My content used to end at "now you know how to do it". This is just too unnatural, writing a meaningful conclusion can be a challange sometimes so AI is helping me a lot.
I work for a data company with an enterprise focus. Anything that goes into the company blog is vetted, researched and published with a reasonably high level quality requirement.
We are not actually interested in content generation or content churn with AI (period). But AI as a personal content helper is proving to be somewhat useful for me.
These tools are fine for casual writers. However, people who write as their primary craft should work to improve their craft. AI (and spellcheck) are just crutches.
He's presumably not doing 1) paste his draft into ChatGPT, 2) paste the ChatGPT output into the text editor, 3) click publish.
If your objective is to create a well-written and effective document (rather than having AI autowrite some useless email), you wouldn't just blindly publish the ChatGPT output. You would read through the text that ChatGPT outputs and spend a minute reviewing what it wrote and tweaking it to your liking. Over time, as you read the corrected well-written version of your original poorly-written content, your brain naturally picks up on the differences and learns how to write well.
I've experienced this personally with Grammarly. I had very low expectations going in, and I still don't like some of its suggestions, but over time as you see and apply the corrections it suggests, you naturally end up learning and improving your writing skills. It's a great learning tool.
And I agree that it is a good tool if you decide to put some effort on that, but that wasn't my impression from the original comment.
The parent's use of AI sounds like a perfect tool to help get the brain out of the 100ft view and into the 30,000ft view to write that summary.
I just used chatgpt for a similar purpose, I rewrote several paragraphs from the response and it took me some time iterating on my prompt. But, I'm sold on the use for this purpose. I don't enjoy writing. This helps me become a better writer and saves time.
Customers: Fault-tolerant queue with high throughput.
Developers: Sharded and disk-backed queue.
Marketers: Scales to handle large ML workloads.
Analysts: Enters enterprise BI market.
It's starting to make sense to me why this is a billion dollar industry like Google was. Not because of its proposed usefulness but it's ability to create a monopoly where the options are to sign an contract you don't get to negotiate, or be "outcompeted".
It feels like a mirror of Google's relationship with content creation sites. They created and continue to benefit from a reality where the options are "give Google your content for free to index and use as it likes" or "your content isn't discoverable by people".
Wonder how lossy this process would be, but given how non-AI-assisted conversations go this could probably be an improvement. Imagine the AI also has extra context from your work files so it can add relevant details.
(And I know you’re imagining some adequate and reliable security practice, but those practices are harder to apply to generative AI than to people, where they’re already a clusterf—k. What you’re suggesting is a security specialist’s nightmare)
"Architected to protect tenant, group and individual data. We know data leakage is a concern for customers. Copilot LLMs are not trained on your tenant data or your prompts. Within your tenant, our time-tested permissioning model ensures that data won’t leak across user groups. And on an individual level, Copilot presents only data you can access using the same technology that we’ve been using for years to secure customer data."
It was impressive on general information, but as I got to more specific questions, I got a lot of vague and vaguely incorrect responses. When I provided a specific paper on the topic, it provided similar generalizations.
The weird thing is that it completely fabricated the author's name. No part of the name was anywhere in the paper. Called on the error, ChatGPT then said, "sorry for the error, it's really [Different_Name_2]". Called on that error, it then said similar "sorry for the error it's really [Different_Name_3]", then [Different_Name_4], and [Different_Name_5]... Wrong dates also, but it finally did get the date right (displayed right above the line saying "Author"..."). It also hallucinated employers for these fabricated authors.
It never did provide the right info. When I specifically prompted it with "ou did find the correct date information. Right under that there is a line saying "Author:" and following that, there is the actual author's name and employer. Can you parse and answer me with that actual information about the author?"
It first responded with a red error message. Repeated, it hallucinated ANOTHER fabrication...
I'm just astonished about the way this thing doubles down on it's hallucinations.
This really is the invention of infinitely scaled bullshit.
Edit: Definition of BS is speech or writing produced not specifically to lie or tell the truth, but with utter disregard for the facts. E.g., a BS artist just spins tales that sound good, with neither malicious or deceitful intent, but also with zero care about truth.
That's been the core of business work for decades. Now finally automated.
But alas, that's the way it is. Reminds me the custom in Japan working culture. There are so many unspoken rules you are expected to follow and it became hinderance.