> If you are expecting AI to be correct then you are holding it wrong.
That’s not the message and expectation we’re being given, these models are being hailed as the future today. When something really bad happens because someone over relied on these systems, hand waving with “well, you shouldn’t have expected the answer to be right” won’t cut it.
> The correct way to relate to AI is to listen and if the answer matters, verify.
If the answer doesn’t matter, why are we asking? And if we need to verify, what’s the point of asking the AI?
I’m expecting the marketing material to not have mistakes in it, especially when the gist of the article surrounding it is “we’re taking it slow because we want to ensure it doesn’t spit bullshit”
That’s not the message and expectation we’re being given, these models are being hailed as the future today. When something really bad happens because someone over relied on these systems, hand waving with “well, you shouldn’t have expected the answer to be right” won’t cut it.
> The correct way to relate to AI is to listen and if the answer matters, verify.
If the answer doesn’t matter, why are we asking? And if we need to verify, what’s the point of asking the AI?