441
Google’s Search AI Says Slavery Was Good, Actually (futurism.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
167 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Google's AI-driven Search Generative Experience have been generating results that are downright weird and evil, ie slavery's positives.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 3 years ago (2 children)

what's going to stick in the shifting sea of discourse

This is what I think too. We've had enough trouble with "vaccines CaUsE AuTiSm" and that was just one article by one rogue doctor.

AI is capable of a real death-by-a-thousand-cuts effect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    that was just one article by one rogue doctor.

    That was pushed by many media organizations because its sensationalist topic. Antivaxers are idiots but the media played a fucking huge role blowing a pilot study that had a rather fucking absurd conclusion out of proportions, so they can sell more ads/newspapers. I fucking doubt most antivaxers (Hell I doubt most people haven't either) even read the original study and came to their own conclusions on this. They just watched on the telly some stupid idiots giving a bullshit story that they didn't combat at all

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    To be fair no one expects The Lancet to publish falsified data. Only it does occasionally and getting it to retract is like trying to turn a container ship around in the Panama Canal.

    But yeah this is part of what I mean. Media cycles and digital reproduceability and algorithms that seek clicks can all potentially give AI-generated errors a lot of play and rewrites into more credible forms etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Filtering falsified data before publishing it is near impossible. If you want to publish falsified data, you easily can. No one can verify it without replicating the experiment on their own, which is usually done after the publication by a different scientific group. Peer review is more suited to filter out papers with bad methodology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •