24 Seriously Embarrassing Hours for AI
We recorded 6 claims from this post. 2 were checked against evidence. 4 can’t be checked. 8 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (6)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“one of the things that popped out to me is that the system still quickly lands in the land of hallucination that has so haunted ChatGPT.”
Our reading: Anthropic's Claude, despite its alignment focus, still quickly hallucinates like ChatGPT.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The comparison is informal and based on few prompts.
Assessment: MixedSaid
Observation
“CNET became the first casualty of the recently fashionable tendency to put too much faith in ChatGPT.”
Our reading: CNET was the first casualty of putting too much faith in ChatGPT, publishing AI-written stories with many mistakes.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The ChatGPT denial comes from CNET itself, and the underlying model was not disclosed.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“Real AI wouldn’t need sweatshops.”
Our reading: Genuine AI would not require sweatshop labor.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“Real AI wouldn’t need vast amounts of data.”
Our reading: Genuine AI would not require vast amounts of training data.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“AI Sweatshops are the consequence of trying to substitute shallow data for deep understanding.”
Our reading: AI sweatshops result from substituting shallow data for deep understanding in AI design.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Sometimes the slower road is the better road.”
Our reading: In choosing what kind of AI to build, sometimes the slower road is the better road.
No horizon
Qualifier: sometimes
Held from this post (8)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: OpenAI used sweatshop labor behind the scenes.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: Court testimony indicates some fairly senior driverless-car employees were apparently unaware of human factors engineering, which is essential when humans are in the loop.
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: As of January 2023, no car has completed an intervention-free autonomous drive from LA to NYC.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: Tesla's 2016 driverless car demo was apparently staged rather than a single unedited real run.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: Highway miles are the easy part of the promised intervention-free LA-to-NYC drive, and nobody even pretends anymore to be close to making such a drive off the Interstate.
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: ChatGPT relies on a massive amount of human labor to filter out bad content, not just a large neural network.
- The two reviews read the claim differently