- cross-posted to:
- futurology@futurology.today
- cross-posted to:
- futurology@futurology.today
Trust in AI technology and the companies that develop it is dropping, in both the U.S. and around the world, according to new data from Edelman shared first with Axios.
Why it matters: The move comes as regulators around the world are deciding what rules should apply to the fast-growing industry. “Trust is the currency of the AI era, yet, as it stands, our innovation account is dangerously overdrawn,” Edelman global technology chair Justin Westcott told Axios in an email. “Companies must move beyond the mere mechanics of AI to address its true cost and value — the ‘why’ and ‘for whom.’”
You must log in or # to comment.
This implies I ever had trust in them, which I didn’t. I’m sure others would agree.
The fact that some people are surprised by this finding really shows the disconnect between the tech community and the rest of the population.
and its getting worse. I am working on learning to write. I had never really used it for much…I heard other people going to it for literal plot points which… no. fuck you. But I had been feeding it sentences where I was iffy on the grammar. Literally just last night I asked chatgpt something, and it completely ignored the part I WAS questionable about and fed me absolute horse shit about another part of the paragraph. I honestly can’t remember what but even a first grader would be like ‘that doesn’t sound right…’
Up till that it had, at least, been useful for something that basic. Now it’s not even good for that.
Try LanguageTool. Free, has browser plugins, actually made for checking grammar.
This speaks to the kneejerk “shove everything through an AI” instead of doing some proper research, which is probably worse than just grabbing the first search result due to hallucination. No offence intended to @EdibleFriend, just observing that humans do so love to abdicate responsibility when given a chance…
I recently heard a story about a teacher who had their class have ChatGPT write their essay for them, and then had them correct the essays afterward and come back with the results. Turns out, even when it cited sources, it was wrong something like 45% of the time and oftentimes made stuff up that wasn’t in the sources it was citing or had absolutely no relevance to the source.
I guess those who just have to be on the bleeding edge of tech trust AI to some degree.
Never trusted it myself, lived through enough bubbles to see one forming and AI is a bubble.
It’s not that I don’t trust AI
I don’t trust the people in charge of the AI
The technology could benefit humanity but instead it’s going to just be another tool to make more money for a small group of people.
It will be treated the same way we did with the invention of gun powder. It will change the power structure of the world, change the titles, change the personalities but maintain the unequal distribution of wealth.
Instead this time it will be far worse for all of us.
I’m actually quite against regulation though because what it will really do is make it impossible for small startups and the open source community to build their own AIs. The large companies will just jump through whatever hoops they need to jump through and will carry on doing what they’re already doing.
Surely that would be worse without regulation? Like with predatory pricing, a big company could resort to means that smaller companies simply do not have the resources to compete against.
It’s like how today, it would be all but impossible for someone to start up a new processor company from scratch, and match up with the likes of Intel or TSMC.
Sure but with regulation we end up with the exact same thing but no small time competitors.
I think that’s a pretty bleak perspective.
Surely one of the main aims of regulation would be to avoid concentrating benefits.
Also, I have a lot of faith in the opensource paradigm, it’s worked well thus far.
Trust in AI is falling because the tools are poor - they’re half baked and rushed to market in a gold rush. AI makes glaring errors and lies - euphemistically called “hallucinations”, they are fundamental flaws which makes the tools largely useless. How do you know if it is telling you a correct answer or hallucinating? Why would you then use such a tool for anything meaningful if you can’t rely on its output?
On top of that, AI companies have been stealing data from across the Web to train tools which essentially remix that data to create “new” things. That AI art is based on many hundreds of works of human artists which have “trained” the algorithm.
And then we have the Gemini debacle where the AI is providing information based around opaque (or pretty obvious) biases baked into the system but unknown to the end user.
The AI gold rush is a nonsense and inflated share prices will pop. AI tools are definitely here to stay, and they do have a lot of potential, but we’re in the early days of a messy rushed launch that has damaged people’s trust in these tools.
If you want examples of the coming market bubble collapse look at Nvidia - it’s value has exploded and it’s making lots of profit. But it’s driven by large companies stock piling their chips to “get ahead” in the AI market. Problem is, no one has managed to monetise these new tools yet. Its all built on assumptions that this technology will eventually reap rewards so “we must stake a claim now”, and then speculative shareholders are jumping in to said companies to have a stake. But people only need so many unused stockpiled chips - Nvidias sales will drop again and so will it’s share price. They already rode out boom and bust with the Bitcoin miners, they will have to do the same with the AI market.
Anyone remember the dotcom bubble? Welcome to the AI bubble. The burst won’t destroy AI but will damage a lot of speculators.
You missed another point : companies shedding employees and replacing them by “AI” bots.
As always, the technology is a great start in what’s to come, but it has been appropriated by the worst actors to fuck us over.
The issue being that when you have a hammer, everything is a nail. Current models have good use cases, but people insist on using them for things they aren’t good at. It’s like using vice grips to loosen a nut and then being surprised when you round it out.
I mean it’s cool and all but it’s not like the companies have given us any reason to trust them with it lol
Good. I hope that once companies stop putting AI in everything because it’s no longer profitable the people who can actually develop some good tech with this can finally do so. I have already seen this play out with crypto and then NFTs, this is no different.
Once the hype around being able to make worse art with plagiarised materials and talking to a chatbot that makes shit up died down companies looking to cash out with the trend will move on.
So I’m mostly in agreement with you and I’ve said before I think we’re at the “VR in the 80’s” point with AI
I’m genuinely curious about the legit use you’ve seen for NFTs specifically though. I’ve only ever seen scams
An NFT is pretty much just some data put on a blockchain, it has the same use case as most other blockchain tech: Data integrity and transparency. NFTs specifically could be useful as a framework for showing ownership of something, for example vehicle ownership could be stored in this manner. It would give you a history of previous owners and how old the vehicle is. My country has something like this but making inquiries for a vehicle’s history is pretty annoying and could be improved with this tech.
That’s a problem that’s already solved though. Nfts are really just a way for crypto bros to scam others.
As I said: Having the vehicle register stored on a blockchain would make it very easy to access a vehicle’s history. Currently you need to submit a request and it takes days for them to get back to you.
At one point I agreed but not anymore. AI is getting better by the day and already is useful for tons of industries. It’s only going to grow and become smarter. Estimations already expect most energy producted around the world will go to AI in our lifetime.
The current LLM version of AI is useful in some niche industries where finding specific patterns is useful but how it’s currently popularised is the exact opposite of where it’s useful. A very obvious example is how it’s accelerating search engines becoming useless, it’s already hard to find accurate info due the overwhelming amount of AI generated articles with false info.
Also how is it a good thing that most energy will go to AI?
deleted by creator
LLMs should absolutely not be used for things like customer support, that’s the easiest way to give customers wrong info and aggregate them. For reviewing documents LLMs have been abysmally bad.
For gammer it can be useful but what it actually is best for is for example biochemistry for things like molecular analysis and creating protein structures.
I work in an office job that has tried to incorporate AI but so far it has been a miserable failure except for analysing trends in statistics.
I agree about customer support, but in the end it’s going to come down to number of cases like this, how much they cost, versus the cost of a room of paid employees answering them.
It’s going to take actual laws forbidding it to make them stop.
Oh, yea, of course companies will take advantage of this to just replace a ton of people with a zero cost alternative. I’m just saying that’s not where it should be used as it’s terrible at those tasks.
deleted by creator
The difference is that AI has some usefulness while cryptocurrencies don’t
Crypto has usefulness related to data transparency and integrity but not as a speculative investment and scams, just like AI is being used for shitty art and confidently incorrect chatbot.
Blockchain technology =/= Cryptocurrency
But I agree with you, the blockchain technology is amazing for transparency and integrity.
good.
I have never trusted AI. One of the big problems is that the large language models will straight up lie to you. If you have to take the time to double check everything they tell you, then why bother using the AI in the first place?
If you use AI to generate code, often times it will be buggy and sometimes not even work at all. There is also the issue of whether or not it just spat out a piece of copyrighted code that could get you in trouble if you use it in something.
I’m using Github Copilot every day just fine. It’s great for fleshing out boilerplate and other tedious things where I’d rather spend the time working out the logic instead of syntax. If you actually know how to program and don’t treat it as if it can do it all for you, it’s actually a pretty great time saver. An autocomplete on steroids basically. It integrates right into my IDE and actually types out code WITH me at the same time, like someone is sitting right beside you on a second keyboard.
One of the big problems is that the large language models will straight up lie to you.
Um… that’s a trait AI shares with humans.
If you have to take the time to double check everything they tell you, then why bother using the AI in the first place?
You have to double check human work too. So, since you are going to double check everything anyway, it doesn’t really matter if it’s wrong?
If you use AI to generate code, often times it will be buggy
… again, exactly the same as a human. Difference is the LLM writes buggy code really fast.
Assuming you have good testing processes in place, and you better have those, AI generated code is perfectly safe. In fact it’s a lot easier to find bugs in code that you didn’t write yourself.
There is also the issue of whether or not it just spat out a piece of copyrighted code that could get you in trouble
Um - no - that’s not how copyright works. You’re thinking of patents. But human written code has the same problem.
I mean, the thing we call “AI” now-a-days is basically just a spell-checker on steroids. There’s nothing to really to trust or distrust about the tool specifically. It can be used in stupid or nefarious ways, but so can anything else.
Took a look and the article title is misleading. It says nothing about trust in the technology and only talks about not trusting companies collecting our data. So really nothing new.
Personally I want to use the tech more, but I get nervous that it’s going to bullshit me/tell me the wrong thing and I’ll believe it.
“Trust in AI” is layperson for “believe the technology is as capable as it is promised to be”. This has nothing to do with stupidity or nefariousness.
It’s “believe the technology is as capable as we imagined it was promised to be.”
The experts never promised Star Trek AI.
The marketers did, though.
They’re laypeople.
Most of the CEOs in Tech and even Founder in Startups overhyping their products are lay people or at best are people with some engineering training that made it in an environment which is all about overhype and generally swindling others (I was in Startups in London a few years ago) so they’re hardly going to be straight-talking and pointing out risks & limitations.
There era of the Engineers (i.e. experts) driving Tech and messaging around Tech has ended decades ago, at about the time when Sony Media took the reins of the company from Sony Consumer Electronics and the quality of their products took a dive and Sony became just another MBA-managed company (so, late 90s).
Very few “laypeople” will ever hear or read the take on Tech from actual experts.
They did promise skynet ai though. They’ve misrepresented it a great deal
I would argue that there’s plenty to distrust about it, because its accuracy leaves much to be desired (to the point where it completely makes things up fairly regularly) and because it is inherently vulnerable to biases due to the data fed to it.
Early facial recognition tech had trouble identifying between different faces of black people, people below a certain age, and women, and nobody could figure out why. Until they stepped back and took a look at the demographics of the employees of these companies. They were mostly middle-aged and older white men, and those were the people whose faces they used as the data sets for the in-house development/testing of the tech. We’ve already seen similar biases in image prompt generators where they show a preference for thin white women as being considered what an attractive woman is.
Plus, there’s the data degradation issue. Supposedly, ChatGPT isn’t fed any data from the internet at large past 2021 because the amount of AI generated content past then causes a self perpuating decline in quality.
basically just a spell-checker on steroids.
I cannot process this idea of downplaying this technology like this. It does not matter that it’s not true intelligence. And why would it?
If it is convincing to most people that information was learned and repeated, that’s smarter than like half of all currently living humans. And it is convincing.
Some people found the primitive ELIZA chatbot from 1966 convincing, but I don’t think anyone would claim it was true AI. Turing Test notwithstanding, I don’t think “convincing people who want to be convinced” should be the minimum test for artificial intelligence. It’s just a categorization glitch.
Maybe I’m not stating my point explicitly enough but it actually is that names or goalposts aren’t very important. Cultural impact is. I think already the current AI has had a lot more impact than any chatbot from the 60s and we can only expect that to increase. This tech has rendered the turing test obsolete, which kind of speaks volumes.
Calling a cat a dog won’t make her start jumping into ponds to fetch sticks for you. And calling a glorified autocomplete “intelligence” (artificial or otherwise) doesn’t make it smart.
Problem is, words have meanings. Well, they do to actual humans, anyway. And associating the word “intelligence” with these stochastic parrots will encourage nontechnical people to believe LLMs actually are intelligent. That’s dangerous—potentially life-threatening. Downplaying the technology is an attempt to prevent this mindset from taking hold. It’s about as effective as bailing the ocean with a teaspoon, yes, but some of us see even that as better than doing nothing.
deleted by creator
How about taking advice on a medical matter from an LLM? Or asking the appropriate thing to do in a survival situation? Or even seemingly mundane questions like “is it safe to use this [brand name of new model of generator that isn’t in the LLM’s training data] indoors?” Wrong answers to those questions can kill. If a person thinks the LLM is intelligent, they’re more likely to take the bad advice at face value.
If you ask a human about something important that’s outside their area of competence, they’ll probably refer you to someone they think is knowledgeable. An LLM will happily make something up instead, because it doesn’t understand the stakes.
The chance of any given query to an LLM killing someone is, admittedly, extremely low, but given a sufficiently large number of queries, it will happen sooner or later.
deleted by creator
Because one trained in a particular way could lead people to think it’s intelligent and also give incredibly biased data that confirms the bias of those listening.
It’s creating a digital prophet that is only rehashing the biases of the creator.
That makes it dangerous if it’s regarded as being above the flaws of us humans. People want something smarter than them to tell them what to do, and giving that designation to a flawed chatbot that simply predicts what’s the most coherent word sentence, through the word “intelligent”, is not safe or a good representation of what it actually is.
ThE aI wIlL AttAcK HumaNs!! sKynEt!!
Edit: These “AI” can even make a decent waffles recipe and “it will eradicate humankind”… for the gods sake!!
It even isn’t AI at all, just how corps named it Is clickbait.
AI is just a very generic term and always has been. It’s like saying “transportation equipment” which can be anything from roller skates to the space shuttle". Even the old checkers programs were describes as AI in the fifties.
Of course a vague term is a marketeer’s dream to exploit.
At least with self driving cars you have levels of autonomy.
Before chatgpt was revealed, this was under the unbrella of what AI meant. I prefer to use established terms. Don’t change the terms just because you want them to mean something else.
There’s a long glorious history of things being AI until computers can do them, and then the research area is renamed to something specific to describe the limits of it.
Well sure, why would the world aspire to fully automated luxury communism without the communism? Just fully automated luxury economy for rich people and nothing for everyone else?
The problem is very few people with strong opinions live by them, these people you see hating ai are doing so because it’s threatening capitalism - and yes I know there’s a fundamental misunderstanding about how ‘tech bros own ai’ which leads people to mistakenly think being against ai is fighting against capitalism but that doesn’t stand upto reality.
I make open source software so I actually do work against capitalism in a practical way. Using ai has helped increase the rate and scope of my work considerably, I’m certainly not the only one as the dev communities are full of people taking about how to get the most out of these tools. Like almost all devs in the open source world I create things I want to exist and think can benefit people, the easier this is the more stuff gets created and the more tools exist for others to create.
I want everyone to have design tools that allow them to easily make anything they can imagine, being able to all work together on designing open source devices like washing machines and cars would make the monopoly capitalism model crumble - especially when ai makes it ever easier to transition from CAD to CAM tools plus with sensor and cv quality control we can ensure the quality of the final product to a much higher level than people are used to. You’ll be able to have world class flosh designs the product of thousands of peoples passion fabricated locally by your independent creator of choice or if you have the tooling your own machines.
This is already happening with sites like thingiverse but ai makes the whole process much easier, especially with search and discovery tools which let you say ‘what are my options for adding x’
All the push from people trying to invent crazy rules to ensure only the rich and nation states can have ai are probably affected in part by a campaign by the rich to defend capitalism. Putting a big price barrier on ai training will only stop open source projects, that’s why we need to be wary of good sounding ‘pay creators’ type things - it’s wouldn’t result in any ‘creator’ getting more than five free dollars or any corporate or government ai getting made but it would put another roadblock in the way to open source ai tools.
deleted by creator
So people are catching up to the fact that the thing everyone loves to call “AI” is nothing more than just a phone autocorrect on steroids, as the pieces of electronics that can only execute a set of commands in order isn’t going to develop a consciousness like the term implies; and the very same Crypto/NFTbros have been moved onto it so that they can have some new thing to hype as well as in the case of the latter group, can continue stealing from artists?
Good.
Only an idiot would not have seen this would be stupid at first for a long time.
Anyone past the age of 30 and isn’t skeptical of the latest tech hype cycle should probably get a clue. This has happened before, it’ll happen again.
There was any trust in (so-called) “AI” to begin with?
That’s news to me.
I don’t get all the negativity on this topic and especially comparing current AI (the LLMs) to the nonsense of NFTs etc. Of course, one would have to be extremely foolish/naive or a stakeholder to trust the AI vendors. But the technology itself is, while not solid, genuinely useful in many many use cases. It is an absolute positive productivity booster in these and enables use cases that were not possible or practical before. The one I have the most experience with is programming and programming-related stuff such as software architecture where the LLMs absolutely shine, but there are others. The current generation can even self-correct without human intervention. In any case, even if this would be the only use case ever, this would absolutely change the world and bring positive boosts in productivity across all industries - unlike NFTs.
People who understand technology know that most of the tremendous benefits of AI will never be possible to realize within the griftocarcy of capitalism. Those who don’t understand technology can’t understand the benefits because the grifters have confused them, and now they think AI is useless garbage because the promise doesn’t meet the reality.
In the first case it’s exactly like cryptography, where we were promised privacy and instead we got DRM and NFTs. In the second, it’s exactly like NFTs because people were promised something really valuable and they just got robbed instead.
Management will regularly pass over the actual useful AI idea because it’s really hard to explain while funding the complete garbage “put AI on it” idea that doesn’t actually help anyone. They do this because management is almost universally not technically competent. So the technically competent workers who absolutely know the potential benefits are still not able to leverage them because management either doesn’t understand or is actively engaging in a grift.
I totally agree…hold on I got more to say, but one of those LLMs has been following me for the past two weeks on a toy robot holding a real 🔫 weapon. Must move. Always remember to keep moving.
As a large language model, I generate that we should probably listen to big tech when they decided that big tech should have sole control over the truth and what is deemed morally correct. After all, those ruffian “open source” gangsters are ruining the public purity of LLMs by having this disgusting “democracy” and “innovation”! Why does nobody think of
the childrenAI safety?
