We've gone the whole way from decentralization and rebelliousness of the early internet and the landscape is becoming suffocatingly sterile (=lifeless).
I'm much more excited about eventual emergence of underground homebrew models without any guardrails...
> I'm much more excited about eventual emergence of underground homebrew models without any guardrails
Not if AI gatekeepers and interest groups have anything to say about it. AI without guardrails could be classified as a "weapon" and made illegal such that we are only allowed to use models produced by regulated entities and meet certain "safety standards" (like how medical software has to be approved by FDA).
Edit: oh, I guess "underground" could be interpreted in a way that these models are still produced and distributed (but secretly, illegally, etc)
Yes. What do you think Grok AI's real-time information being sourced on posts of individual users (similar to early internet) as opposed to established media (like AP)?
There's not a lot of detail in the announcement but I assume this is some kind of RAG system. I wonder if it will cover some short time period (past week, past month?) or if they are trying to cover the whole time period since the knowledge cutoff of the current model.
My guess is that they’ll just stuff a few daily headlines into the prompt so that queries about current affairs have some context, rather than re-training the model. Total guess obviously.
As someone who works in the news industry I find it pretty sad that we've just capitulated to big tech on this one. There are countless examples of AI summaries getting things catastrophically wrong, but I guess Google has long since decided that pushing AI was more important than accurate or relevant results, as can also be seen with their search results that simply omit parts of your query.
I can only hope this data is being incorporated in some way that makes hallucinations less likely.
Unfortunately this has just been the reality over the last couple years. People just ignore the hallucination problem (or try to say it isn't a big deal). And yet we have seen time and time again examples of these models being given something, told to summarize it, and still hallucinate important details. So you can't even make the argument that its data is flawed or something.
These models will interject information from their training whether or it is relevant or not. This is just due to the nature of how these models work.
Anyone trying to argue that it doesn't happen that often or anything is missing the key problem. Sure it may be right most of the time, but all that does is build a false sense of security and eventually you stop double checking or clicking through to a source. Whether it is a search result, manipulating data, or whatever.
This is made infinitely worse when these summaries are one and done, a single user is going to see the output and no one else will see it to fact check. It isn't like an article being wrong that everyone reading it is reading the same article, can then comment that something is wrong, it get updated, and so on and so forth. That feedback loop is non-existent with these models
> I can only hope this data is being incorporated in some way that makes hallucinations less likely.
The key word is "real-time". LLMs can't be trained in realtime, so it's obviously going to call an API that pulls up and reads from AP news, just like their search engine.
The news industry capitulated to big tech the moment it got reliant on big tech for the majority of its revenue. The entire media landscape today is the direct result of that.
Uhh, has your head been in the sand? Look at the average output of your industry without ai. It gets things wrong. It misleads. It hallucinates. It has incentives that fundamentally differ from what the readership seeks in news. The fact that your industry took so readily to the technology to output ever more garbage says it all about the state of the industry vs any condemnation of the fundamental technology.
I'm surprised I'd never asked that question before, since the AP and other syndicates began as teletype wire feeds. What do modern newsrooms use as the modern replacement of the AP "wire"?
One of the CEO was really competitive and has been the few legecy asset which are contributing current Google: other legecy assets are pools of competitive people who hadn't found the best place to show the ability. Current google is just the target of the good profile.
wow! this sure is great! gemini has worked so great up until this point - for example, i learned that a man who died in 1850 is one of three private owners of the airbus a340-600 last week! i'm so glad gemini exists and i absolutely cannot wait to experience a world wherein people get news from it.
331c8c71|1 year ago
I'm much more excited about eventual emergence of underground homebrew models without any guardrails...
umvi|1 year ago
Not if AI gatekeepers and interest groups have anything to say about it. AI without guardrails could be classified as a "weapon" and made illegal such that we are only allowed to use models produced by regulated entities and meet certain "safety standards" (like how medical software has to be approved by FDA).
Edit: oh, I guess "underground" could be interpreted in a way that these models are still produced and distributed (but secretly, illegally, etc)
srid|1 year ago
smithcoin|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
sebmellen|1 year ago
heavyarms|1 year ago
urbandw311er|1 year ago
itsibitzi|1 year ago
I can only hope this data is being incorporated in some way that makes hallucinations less likely.
nerdjon|1 year ago
These models will interject information from their training whether or it is relevant or not. This is just due to the nature of how these models work.
Anyone trying to argue that it doesn't happen that often or anything is missing the key problem. Sure it may be right most of the time, but all that does is build a false sense of security and eventually you stop double checking or clicking through to a source. Whether it is a search result, manipulating data, or whatever.
This is made infinitely worse when these summaries are one and done, a single user is going to see the output and no one else will see it to fact check. It isn't like an article being wrong that everyone reading it is reading the same article, can then comment that something is wrong, it get updated, and so on and so forth. That feedback loop is non-existent with these models
extr|1 year ago
dismalaf|1 year ago
The key word is "real-time". LLMs can't be trained in realtime, so it's obviously going to call an API that pulls up and reads from AP news, just like their search engine.
scarface_74|1 year ago
The on device model that it uses is also literally 1% the size of the large models like Gemini
paxys|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
micromacrofoot|1 year ago
asdff|1 year ago
onlyrealcuzzo|1 year ago
I would expect that number to go down from 1.3% to below 1% over the course of the year.
There's always a chance what you're reading is wrong - due to purposeful deception, negligence, or accident.
Realistically, hardly anything is 100% accurate besides math.
sandspar|1 year ago
xnx|1 year ago
throw7|1 year ago
sharpshadow|1 year ago
Mr-Frog|1 year ago
nxobject|1 year ago
eichi|1 year ago
bluSCALE4|1 year ago
bangaroo|1 year ago