Chicago Sun-Times caught publishing likely ChatGPT generated list of Summer Reading recommendations. 10 of 15 books don't exist.

https://slrpnk.net/post/22448345

Chicago Sun-Times caught publishing likely ChatGPT generated list of Summer Reading recommendations. 10 of 15 books don't exist. - SLRPNK

[https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/c65ca50c-9318-42ef-9223-8c5f293bbef7.png]

Wait, so chat GPT can’t even compile a fucking list of books without making up 2/3rds of it’s response out of thin air?

I don’t really see the appeal of using AI if it’s going to take more time and effort to fact check the responses it gives me because it has a massively high failure rate.

I don’t really see the appeal of using AI if it’s going to take more time and effort to fact check the responses it gives me because it has a massively high failure rate.

You just run the output back through and ask it to fact check for you. Problem solved!

My company paid for some people to go to one of these “accelerate your company with AI” seminars - the recommendation that the “AI Expert” gave was to ask the LLM to include a percentage of how confident it was in its answers. I’m technical enough to understand that that isn’t how LLMs work, but it was pretty scary how people thought that was a reasonable, sensible idea.

To be fair, I think it’s really easy to fall into that sort of viewpoint. The way most people interact with them is inherently anthropomorphic, and I think that plus the fact that AI as a concept is almost as memed as flying cars in various media makes it really hard not to end up relating that way.

I have a technical background and understand LLMs enough to know that’s bad, but I also used it like LCARS when it was new and thought it was effing amazing for a time. It’s super easy to fall under that spell, IMO.

Totally - “scary” as in “this is going to cause so many issues and get people into real trouble” more than “man people are stupid”
Treating it anthropomorphically is a sign of respect, similar to how a sailor would bond with their ship. It’s not necessarily BAD or dumber or wrong to talk with it like its human - that’s clearly what every single interface is telling you to do by representing it like a texting partner. You can’t interact with a machine that speaks english non-anthropomorphically.
I don’t disagree! But my point was that it will inherently present challenges to interacting with it objectively and fully rationally, IMO.