On the Use of AI
Things that raise questions about efficacy of AI…either in a good way or bad way.
On the Use of AI
So far, over the past 2 years, I have invested more time trying to make genAI work for me than what genAI has saved me. Maybe by a 2-3x factor. But I will keep trying.
Francois here speaks to coding, but this estimate mirrors my experience with non-coding tasks.
we removed the AI-powered search from our docs because it was unreliable and made up fake features
still waiting for the production-grade llm that can reliably produce data without hallucinations
long way to go
Y Combinator winner/CEO, developing a new email marketing system.
Blatant logical contradiction
Nature paper demonstrates that training AI on AI-generated data eventually produces nonsense (as expected?).
Mixed results from interpreting an image. Seems capable, but this was in response to the question “is there a cup on my desk?” and uploading the image.
Uhhhhh more questions re: math?
Let's pause for a little detour through automation theory here. Automation can augment a worker. We can call this a "centaur" – the worker offloads a repetitive task, or one that requires a high degree of vigilance, or (worst of all) both. They're a human head on a robot body (hence "centaur"). Think of the sensor/vision system in your car that bee... See more
Pluralistic: “Humans in the loop” must detect the hardest-to-spot errors, at superhuman speed (23 Apr 2024) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
An AI-assisted radiologist processes fewer chest X-rays every day, costing their employer more, on top of the cost of the AI. That's not what AI companies are selling. They're offering hospitals the power to create reverse centaurs: radiologist-assisted AIs. That's what "human in the loop" means.
It willingly acquiesces if told false information
Francois has shown good interpretation and judgment in the past.