08-01-2024, 02:25 PM
Here is the Meta text relating to this observable deviation from "providing answers"
Review of Fact-Checking Label and Meta AI Responses
I note that the link (url) has the phrase "review-of-fact-checking-label-and-meta-ai-responses" in it.
A) Re-affirming the embedded lie that "AI" is the subject... LLM's are NOT AI - they are an algorithmic processing of language.
B) "Fact checking" is an interesting designation - the implication being that their so-called AI's purpose is for "fact checking."
C) "Meta AI responses" - as if Meta has "AI" and it is responding under the guise of Meta.
Also, note that the statement is from the office of the VP for "Global Policy"... under which US News falls...
They seem to say that "emergent events" are too complicated for the "AI" to contend with? Why? It can't "keep up?" Is "AI" suddenly too feeble to deal with the informational reality that humans live and thrive in? What happened to all that 'fearful power' that AI is supposed to bring onto data analysis? Or is it that the sanctioned "minders" can't keep up with the political filters and their changing objectives or the "mood" of the owners?
They pepper the 'explanation with the most inane nonsense an analyst could conjure...
...the responses generated by large language models that power these chatbots are based on the data on which they were trained, which can at times understandably create some issues when AI is asked about rapidly developing real-time topics that occur after they were trained. This includes breaking news events – like the attempted assassination – when there is initially an enormous amount of confusion, conflicting information, or outright conspiracy theories in the public domain (including many obviously incorrect claims that the assassination attempt didn’t happen).
Apparently the very idea that using an alleged "AI" to resolve, collate, and compile information creates 'issues.' And while Meta (and others) encourage everyone to marvel at their 'product' and make use of it; it is unwise to use it for that purpose because it lies....
It lies... but they don't call that lying... they call it "hallucinating" because "lying" would be a bad thing.
...Second, we also experienced an issue related to the circulation of a doctored photo of former President Trump with his fist in the air, which made it look like the Secret Service agents were smiling.
"Doctored" as in had the contrast enhanced, was cropped, or otherwise rendered more 'useful?' And to whom exactly did it appear that anyone was smiling, as opposed to grimacing or clenching their teeth? Passive assertion is a sin in explanations.
Excuses, excuses... couching it in the same semantic, obfuscating language "AI's" hallucinating algorithms offer... I bet the author "used" "AI" to generate this article.
Well... since no one is attending this thread, I will cease and desist my unravelling efforts... but nevertheless...,
We are being spun a tale... and they are not very good at it.
Review of Fact-Checking Label and Meta AI Responses
I note that the link (url) has the phrase "review-of-fact-checking-label-and-meta-ai-responses" in it.
A) Re-affirming the embedded lie that "AI" is the subject... LLM's are NOT AI - they are an algorithmic processing of language.
B) "Fact checking" is an interesting designation - the implication being that their so-called AI's purpose is for "fact checking."
C) "Meta AI responses" - as if Meta has "AI" and it is responding under the guise of Meta.
Also, note that the statement is from the office of the VP for "Global Policy"... under which US News falls...
They seem to say that "emergent events" are too complicated for the "AI" to contend with? Why? It can't "keep up?" Is "AI" suddenly too feeble to deal with the informational reality that humans live and thrive in? What happened to all that 'fearful power' that AI is supposed to bring onto data analysis? Or is it that the sanctioned "minders" can't keep up with the political filters and their changing objectives or the "mood" of the owners?
They pepper the 'explanation with the most inane nonsense an analyst could conjure...
...the responses generated by large language models that power these chatbots are based on the data on which they were trained, which can at times understandably create some issues when AI is asked about rapidly developing real-time topics that occur after they were trained. This includes breaking news events – like the attempted assassination – when there is initially an enormous amount of confusion, conflicting information, or outright conspiracy theories in the public domain (including many obviously incorrect claims that the assassination attempt didn’t happen).
Apparently the very idea that using an alleged "AI" to resolve, collate, and compile information creates 'issues.' And while Meta (and others) encourage everyone to marvel at their 'product' and make use of it; it is unwise to use it for that purpose because it lies....
It lies... but they don't call that lying... they call it "hallucinating" because "lying" would be a bad thing.
...Second, we also experienced an issue related to the circulation of a doctored photo of former President Trump with his fist in the air, which made it look like the Secret Service agents were smiling.
"Doctored" as in had the contrast enhanced, was cropped, or otherwise rendered more 'useful?' And to whom exactly did it appear that anyone was smiling, as opposed to grimacing or clenching their teeth? Passive assertion is a sin in explanations.
Excuses, excuses... couching it in the same semantic, obfuscating language "AI's" hallucinating algorithms offer... I bet the author "used" "AI" to generate this article.
Well... since no one is attending this thread, I will cease and desist my unravelling efforts... but nevertheless...,
We are being spun a tale... and they are not very good at it.
