AI doesn't know or care if the data is fake.

VladVladikoff 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I wonder if Googles products will eventually be the least vulnerable to this after spending so many years optimizing how they filter quality content from bad content.

▲

juujian 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Or maybe they could have listed well on Google, too, if they had splurged on ads and SEO...

	▲	hyperpape 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The page demonstrates that Google specifically delisted them. That said, I expect that OpenAI will eventually have its own search infrastructure that rivals Google's, and the overall system will get smarter. Whatever Google did to recognize this site as trash, OpenAI will do as well.

▲

latexr 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Considering Google’s product was the one who told people to eat rocks, put glue on pizza, and their search results have been dominated by SEO spam for years, I’m not optimistic.

▲

behringer 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Reminds me of the people whining about Wikipedia. AI can know or care if the data is fake, it just needs to be programmed to cross check or rate the source. You can even tell it to do that before accepting the data.

	▲	Forgeties79 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		These are not parallel situations. Wikipedia is far more accurate and consistent, and a lot of the whiners whine because their personal politics make it hard to square the information on the page.

▲

micromacrofoot 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Often real people don't either, plenty of fraud or selective reporting out there... but with AI we can also launder it so that the people who do care about fake data don't know any better.

▲

dgellow 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yep, and the results are presented with the voice of a confident expert but it is actually missing the epistemological layer

▲

ranger_danger 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can prompt it to fact check. Getting tired of these slippery slope arguments that never pan out in the hopeless way people think (printing press/cotton gin/steam engine/computers/calculators/etc. will take all the jobs!!)... but I don't think it will ever stop, it seems inherent to human behavior or something.

"History shows that when a slope appears, regulation steps in, technology evolves to solve the problem, or the culture shifts to reinterpret the tool. In almost every case, the feared bottom of the slope was never reached because humans constantly built ramps or bridges along the way."

▲

dwroberts 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Fact check against what? Other facts it can find online that manipulate its behaviour into citing them?

▲

ranger_danger 8 hours ago | parent [-]

How do humans fact check?

▲

larsonian 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Mostly by way of confirmation bias.

	▲	Muromec 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		if it works often enough to be a good heuristic, it's not really a bias until somebody uses it adversly

▲

chneu 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've had AI lie about fact checking and can't really trust it anymore.

▲

pinevale 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The fact that AI can be duped more easily than a human while sounding more authoritative and being entrusted with more and more critical tasks is really not something you should feel compelled to defend or relativize. It's a problem and the industry doesn't seem to have a good fix.

▲

reactordev 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

in which case it sees it's been cited, that it's the "source of truth" and approves the fake data.

	▲	behringer 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It can certainly make judgements on the data and how it was obtained. You just need to specify the kind of data you will accept (or this can be hard coded)

▲

dgellow 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You cannot reliably do it, no.

▲

dogleash 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the feared bottom of the slope was never reached

Hard disagree. Sometimes it's avoided, any other time we just go into cope mode. We discover on the ride down that the bottom isn't so bad. Turns out our collective control mechanisms didn't fail ourselves if the initial assessment was wrong.

▲

micromacrofoot 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]