"I just found out that it's been hallucinating numbers this entire time."
-
The game of "passing the buck" on this one will be interesting. Hopefully those numbers are at least approximately correct.
That last line doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, though.
-
@Natasha_Jay Ouch! It has literally been sculpted to behave like an extreme people pleaser. Just like humans, we so readily circumvent the truth to please others.
That this is at the deep root of how AI works should alone destroy all but checked usage when honest stats are vital.
-
That last line doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, though.
No, I do wonder that there might be a fraud investigation shortly.
-
@Natasha_Jay @pojntfx it’s scary the number of “accountants” I heard say they just dump their Excel sheets into an LLM and it shits out some amazing final thing/result.
Needless to say I stop talking to these people once I find that out.
-
Obviously, whoever authorised the implementation should be sacked for failure of due diligence.
In a previous life though, I remember talking to someone about their data. "Is this accurate?" I asked. "It's plausible" was the response. A discussion followed around a viewpoint that it isn't actually cheating if you know everyone else is cheating in the same way. Which is why it makes sense not to believe that the figures issued by any organisation are completely accurate, they'll often be presented in a way that supports a particular narrative.
Which isn't what you were talking about, but it did remind me, sorry!
-
@grepe @lxskllr @Natasha_Jay just very difficult to justify marketing spent.
-
@Natasha_Jay as an executive manager, I'd rather rely on hallucinated data than on data intentionally made up by humans.
'Any random number is better than a forged number.' Not 'good', but better than the worst.
-
@Natasha_Jay note the complete absence of gasps following that statement
-
By the way, always delighted to see what is to my understanding a classic prank Auzzies play on tourists
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @dropbear @Natasha_Jay
Unconnected but I did once use “Drop Bear” as a murder weapon in a supers RPG where the assassin had animal control and a pet koala.
-
@Natasha_Jay So the jobs of the VP and CFO were useless to begin with? I'm not surprised.
-
@Natasha_Jay just a reminder that an IAgen doesn’t tell the truth. It tells a plausible answer. That’s what « generative » stands for.
-
@Natasha_Jay Hallucinating is still the wrong word, it's a needless anthropomorphism, they are simply invented numbers...
-
@Natasha_Jay This reminds me of this post - sorry no link - where some talked about introducing CoPilot into his company, for 1000 people, when only 7 people use it actively and he boss can now say that they are AI-enabled company!
-
@Natasha_Jay
I am sure that, as usual, this will be used as an argument against AI, not as one against Natural_I. -
@Natasha_Jay note the complete absence of gasps following that statement
-
Obviously, whoever authorised the implementation should be sacked for failure of due diligence.
In a previous life though, I remember talking to someone about their data. "Is this accurate?" I asked. "It's plausible" was the response. A discussion followed around a viewpoint that it isn't actually cheating if you know everyone else is cheating in the same way. Which is why it makes sense not to believe that the figures issued by any organisation are completely accurate, they'll often be presented in a way that supports a particular narrative.
Which isn't what you were talking about, but it did remind me, sorry!
@Fragarach @Natasha_Jay "it isn't actually cheating if you know everyone else is cheating in the same way"
Which is why anyone who might eventually be prosecuted as a result of being a customer of the Epstein child rape gang is going to feel singled out and hard done by.
-
@Natasha_Jay No one could have predicted this.
-
@Natasha_Jay I love this particular use of AI - disrupting capitalism with a plausibility bomb.
AI was really developed by the Anarchist Illuminati to bring on the Nonsensemageddon.
-
What would be amusing is them having greater success using bullshit data than whoever was previously correlating stuff :^D
I can't find it now, online search has become almost useless.
But there was a news story some years ago where they compared predictions from 10 stock market tipsters. Then they added a mystery 11th to the mix.
When the results came in,the mystery 11th tipster came in a close second if I remember right. The mystery 11th turned out to be a pet parrot.
