It is definitely not a basic task. A lot of humans have trouble with it.
It is one of the areas that I think AI can overtake human ability, given time.
It is one of the areas that I think AI can overtake human ability, given time.
Let's just assume that AI works in some fundamental way similar to human intelligence works. Would it be likely that the AI would suffer from some of the same problems as people? Hallucinations, Obsequiousness etc
IMO One of the computer's characteristics that make it useful is that it doesn't suffer from human behavior anomalies. I would also say that differentiating truthiness from falseness is pretty fundamental to being good/expert at most anything.
If they do arrive at human level reasoning, it is unlikely that the path to doing so will require sacrificing that vast knowledge base.
You can influence it so easily with your inputs as well. You could easily, accidentally point it's search toward the searches someone is more likely to be aligned with, but may not actually be fact.
Especially as AI providers implement long term memory or reflections on historic chats, your bias will very strongly influence outcomes of fact checking.
You probably mean things where the truth is widely known and you should have no trouble sorting it out if you put a little effort in. TFA has nearly zero information about what sorts of things they're talking about here, and clicking around the website I found only a _little_ more info.
I didn’t cherry pick it because obviously it’s not that impressive. But it works - it is professional and gives as much information as it can be confident giving.
You said you can influence it etc but clearly it is hard. Sure it is not perfect but I find that it helps reducing fake news if anything.
You are right that for things that are more subtle you can lead it to certain answers. But we must acknowledge that debates that are not fully solved and have subtleties are not exactly relevant to “spreading misinformation”.
I think that is good in general, I do, I am just weary that it is still shakey ground. The company behind Grok has clear incentives to influence the output of those fact checks as one example. I am also weary of it always eventually conforming to the vox populi as it ingests the internet firehouse. Leading to the loudest, most prolific voices thus views always being more represented.
>I am also weary of it always eventually conforming to the vox populi as it ingests the internet firehouse. Leading to the loudest, most prolific voices thus views always being more represented.
I'm okay with this. This is exactly what I want - what the world has converged on as the correct answer. Spreading what is already what the world has converged on is not what I would consider "false information".