←back to thread

693 points jsheard | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
AnEro ◴[] No.45093447[source]
I really hope this stays up, despite the politics involvement to a degree. I think this is a situation that is a perfect example of how AI hallucinations/lack of accuracy could significantly impact our lives going forward. A very nuanced and serious topic with lots of back and forth being distilled down to headlines by any source, it is a terrifying reality. Especially if we aren't able to communicate how these tools work to the public. (if they even will care to learn it) At least when humans did this they knew at some level at least they skimmed the information on the person/topic.
replies(8): >>45093755 #>>45093831 #>>45094062 #>>45094915 #>>45095210 #>>45095704 #>>45097171 #>>45097177 #
geerlingguy ◴[] No.45093831[source]
I've had multiple people copy and paste AI conversations and results in GitHub issues, emails, etc., and there are I think a growing number of people who blindly trust the results of any of these models... including the 'results summary' posted at the top of Google search results.

Almost every summary I have read through contains at least one glaring mistake, but if it's something I know nothing about, I could see how easy it would be to just trust it, since 95% of it seems true/accurate.

Trust, but verify is all the more relevant today. Except I would discount the trust, even.

replies(8): >>45093911 #>>45094040 #>>45094155 #>>45094750 #>>45097691 #>>45098969 #>>45100795 #>>45107694 #
1. abustamam ◴[] No.45098969[source]
Whenever I use AI in social settings to fact check or do research or get advice, I always trust but verify, but also disclaim it so that people know to trust but verify.

I think this is a good habit to get people into, even in casual conversations. Even if someone didn't directly get their info from AI and got it online, the content could have still been generated by AI. Like you said, the trust part of trust but verify is quickly dwindling.