Turns out, spitting out words when you don’t know what anything means or what “means” means is bad, mmmmkay.
It got journalists who were relevant experts in the subject of the article to rate the quality of answers from the AI assistants.
It found 51% of all AI answers to questions about the news were judged to have significant issues of some form.
Additionally, 19% of AI answers which cited BBC content introduced factual errors, such as incorrect factual statements, numbers and dates.
Introduced factual errors
Yeah that’s . . . that’s bad. As in, not good. As in - it will never be good. With a lot of work and grinding it might be “okay enough” for some tasks some day. That’ll be another 200 Billion please.
Turns out, spitting out words when you don’t know what anything means or what “means” means is bad, mmmmkay.
Introduced factual errors
Yeah that’s . . . that’s bad. As in, not good. As in - it will never be good. With a lot of work and grinding it might be “okay enough” for some tasks some day. That’ll be another 200 Billion please.
I’ll be here begging for a miserable 1 million to invest in some freaking trains and bicycle paths. Thanks.
Is it worse than the current system of editors making shitty click bait titles?
Surprisingly, yes
alternatively: 49% had no significant issues and 81% had no factual errors, it’s not perfect but it’s cheap quick and easy.
Flip a coin every time you read an article whether you get quick and easy significant issues
It’s easy, it’s quick, and it’s free: pouring river water in your socks.
Fortunately, there are other possible criteria.