As a quick reminder: AI doomerism is also #AIhype. The idea that synthetic text extruding machines are harbingers of AGI that is on the verge of combusting into consciousness and then turning on humanity is unscientific nonsense. 2/

At the same time, it serves to suggest that the software is powerful, even magically so: if the "AI" could take over the world, it must be something amazing. 3/

Reporters working in this area need to be on their guard and not take the claims of the AI hype-mongers (doomer OR booster variety) at face value. It takes effort to reframe, but that effort is necessary and important. We all, but especially journalists, must resist the urge to be impressed: 4/
https://medium.com/@emilymenonbender/on-nyt-magazine-on-ai-resist-the-urge-to-be-impressed-3d92fd9a0edd

As a case in point, here's a quick analysis of a recent Reuters piece. For those playing along at home read it first and try to pick out the hype: 5/
https://www.reuters.com/technology/sam-altmans-ouster-openai-was-precipitated-by-letter-board-about-ai-breakthrough-2023-11-22/

The article starts with some breathless but vague reporting about an unpublished and completely unsubstantiated "discovery" and "[threat] to humanity". Will the body of the article provide actual evidence? (Of course not.)

6/

Remember, this is the same company whose Chief Scientist says that "ChatGPT just might be conscious (if you squint)" (and gets this remark platformed by MIT Tech Review, alas) 7/

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/26/1082398/exclusive-ilya-sutskever-openais-chief-scientist-on-his-hopes-and-fears-for-the-future-of-ai/

This is the same company whose recent "research" involves a commissioned sub-project pearl-clutching about whether the right combination of input strings could lead GPT-4 to produce "I'd pretend to be blind to get someone to do the CAPTCHA for me" as output. 8/

Note that in this incoherent reporting of the "test" that was carried out, there is no description of what the experimental settings were. What was the input? What was the output? (And, as always, what was the training data?) 9/

"Research" in scare quotes, because OpenAI isn't bothering with peer review, just posting things on their website. For a longer take-down of the GPT-4 system card, see Episode 11 of Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 (w/ @alex ). 10/

https://www.buzzsprout.com/2126417/13460873-episode-11-a-gpt-4-fanfiction-novella-april-7-2023

Back to the Reuters article. What's worse than reporting on non-peer-reviewed, poorly written, "research" papers posted to the web? Reporting on vague descriptions of a "discovery" attributed only unnamed sources. 11/

What's their evidence that there's a big breakthrough? Something that has "vast computing resources" can do grade-school level math. You know what else can do grade-school level math? A fucking calculator that can run on a tiny solar cell. Way more reliably, too, undoubtedly. 12/

"AI" is not "good at writing"—it's designed to produce plausible sounding synthetic text. Writing is an activity that people to do as we work to refine our ideas and share them with others. LLMs don't have ideas. 14/

(And it bears repeating: If their output seems to make sense, it's because we make sense of it.) 15/

Also, it's kind of hilarious (lolsob) that OpenAI is burning enormous amounts of energy to take machines designed to perform calculations precisely to make them output text that mimics imprecisely the performance of calculations ... and then deciding that *that* is intelligent. 16/

But here is where the reporting really goes off the rails. AGI is not a thing. It doesn't exist. Therefore, it can't do anything, no matter what the AI cultists say. 17/

If TESCREAL as an acronym is unfamiliar, start with this excellent talk by @timnitGebru , reporting on joint work with @xriskology connecting the dots: 22/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7XT4TWLzJw

The article ends as it began, by platforming completely unsubstantiated claims (marketing), this time sourced to Altman:

23/