FaceDeer

Right, you take the article at face value. So exactly as I originally said:

you sure are relying on just believing whatever you read without any checking whatsoever.

For every news article you read?

That’s the point here. AI can allow for tedious tasks to be automated. I could have a button in my browser that, when clicked, tells the AI to follow up on those sources to confirm that they say what the article says they say. It can highlight the ones that don’t. It can add notes mentioning if those sources happen to be inherently questionable - environmental projections from a fossil fuel think tank, for example. It can highlight claims that don’t have a source, and can do a web search to try to find them.

These are all things I can do myself by hand, sure. I do that sometimes when an article seems particularly important or questionable. It takes a lot of time and effort, though. I would much rather have an AI do the grunt work of going through all that and highlighting problem areas for me to potentially check up on myself. Even if it makes mistakes sometimes that’s still going to give me a far more thoroughly checked and vetted view of the news than the existing process.

Did you look at the link I gave you about how this sort of automated fact-checking has worked out on Wikipedia? Or was it too much hassle to follow the link manually, read through it, and verify whether it actually supported or detracted from my argument?

Okay, we’ve established how you don’t do it. So how do you go about the process of fact checking every news article you read?

30 % increase in preformance? or “we WOn’T nEEd progRAmMers iN 3 yEars”?

You think people aren’t going to want to use AI unless it does literally everything for them? That’s exactly the “if something’s not perfect then it must be awful” mindset I was criticizing in the comment you’re responding to.

I don’t see a link to that research, but that means 38% don’t believe AI is significantly overhyped.

If my job depends on saying you are correct… Mr. FaceDeer you are always correct, the most correct ever.

You are now arguing that the source that you yourself brought into this discussion is no good.

This is ridiculous.

Okay, so how do you go about the process of fact checking every news article you read?

Source for what?

And you sure are relying on just believing whatever you read without any checking whatsoever.

Here’s an example of how AI fact checking can find errors in even extremely well-curated data sources.

I just responded to a similar question by [email protected] above, listing a bunch of things I do with AI that having a framework embedded right into Firefox would make a lot more convenient, hopefully it provides some answers for this as well.

Earlier on, Mozilla released a plugin called Orbit that summarized Youtube videos with a single click. Then they shut it down. I’d love to see that back. I’ve found some similar plugins since then but none as elegant and integrated as Orbit was. “Chat with this page” features in general are nice when I come across a big paper or news story where I only want a specific bit of information out of it.

I use the “translate this” function quite frequently, and I’d like to see that using local models instead of relying on Google Translate. I avoid Chrome because I don’t want everything to be Google dominated.

I suspect AI is still too heavyweight for this application yet, but as the advertising wars continue and advertising starts getting slipped directly into the content of pages I bet an AI-enabled adblocker would be nice.

A fact-checker AI that goes through the content of a page and adds footnotes and references would be great. I try to fact-check news stories but it’s a lot of manual drudgery so I’m sure I miss a lot.

Sure, much of this could be done with plugins. Orbit was one originally. But if everybody’s having to create the AI framework for plugins from the ground up that’s going to result in a ton of inconsistency, extra resources wasted, and potential insecurities. I’d like Firefox to provide some kind of unified interface to plugins to let them call AIs as part of whatever they’re doing so that I can pick which models I’d like them to use. I run Ollama on my computer, it provides AI inference to anything that wants to use it locally through a unified API. Something like that built into Firefox would be awesome.

And there’ll likely be plenty of other new things I haven’t thought of to try out. AI is a very active field, there are new models with new capabilities coming out all the time.

Am engineer. I use AI features in browsers, and know several others who also do. I’m looking forward to trying additional features Mozilla’s going to be bringing in the future.

Basing your view of what everyone does on what everyone you know does is a perfect way to amplify the effects of a social bubble.

What does the cybertruck have to do with any of this? This is nonsensical.

So we’ve moved from “no tech-savvy people use AI!” to “lots of tech-savvy people use AI, but many of them fail to make it profitable!”

The Commerce Institute puts that 95% figure in perspective, about 65.3% of all businesses fail by their tenth year. That’s not focusing just on a particular industry that’s the most unknown and volatile one, that’s everything, including fields that have been well known and understood for decades. And I should also note, your source said 95% had yet to grow their revenue, not that 95% had failed - it’s only been a year or two for most.

Your own source provides some other bits of information that support my view, too. Just look past the bias in how it’s worded.

Previous tests show even the most advanced AI products successfully complete only about 30 percent of assigned office tasks.

Wow, only 30% of office tasks can be handled by AI? Clearly a useless technology, throw it away.

Or maybe 30% is actually quite an impressive number. Wouldn’t you like something that handles 30% of your routine work for you?

Gartner’s survey of 163 business executives found that half have abandoned plans to dramatically cut customer service staff by 2027.

So, half of them haven’t abandoned those plans.

Research from GoTo and Workplace Intelligence found that 62 percent of workers believe AI is “significantly overhyped.”

I don’t see a link to that research, but that means 38% don’t believe AI is significantly overhyped.

I never said everyone liked AI, just that lots of tech-savvy people did. I think 38% would count as null

Basically, you’re falling into the trap of assuming if something’s not perfect and not universally loved then it must be awful and universally hated. Communities like this reinforce that view, but the real world outside these digital walls is not like that.

Fortunately the one saving grace of the Fediverse in this regard is that you can see both the upvote and downvote totals for a comment, not just the net difference between them. So even though it’s clear what the majority view is - “AI bad, everyone hates it, and you’re bad for suggesting it could possibly be otherwise!” - I can still see that there are a minority who appreciate my perspective as well. So I continue rolling that boulder up the hill, for the benefit of those who might otherwise only see the “nobody wants AI!” messaging and think it might be true.

Of course, no true Scotsman likes AI.

AKA, tech-savvy people.

Data for the claim that lots of tech-savvy people are developing and using AI? Some of the biggest tech companies in the world right now have an AI focus. NVIDIA, OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, they’re all making massive use of AI. If you want to discount “corporate” tech-savvy people, This page indicates 15 million developers are using GitHub Copilot. Linus Torvalds has spoken in favor of using AI to maintain Linux, if you’d like someone specific and big-name as an example.

Most people in tech that I know hate AI

Emphasis added. We all live inside social bubbles, if one wants to talk about what most people in general believe then one must use data from beyond that. Otherwise you’re going to get a very biased sample, since we generally choose to associate with people who share our own personal values.

Why do you say that tech savvy people are “most opposed to AI?” Don’t conflate “the membership of this small social media bubble called ‘technology’” with tech-savvy people in general. Lots of tech savvy people are developing and using AI, where else do you think it’s coming from?

The problem here is that we’ve got a small crowd with a strong opinion, constantly shouting their opinion to each other and making an unfriendly environment to anyone who doesn’t share that opinion. So of course it seems like “everyone” shares that opinion, you never see otherwise.

Really? That wouldn’t be more “whining?”

It’s pretty simple, though. I complained about the comic, you complained about me complaining about the comic. If one of those is a problem then surely the other is too. If the solution for me is to just shut up and endure it, that’s your solution too.

Personally, I think a position of “can we please not turn the Fediverse into an echo of Reddit” is more appropriate here than a position of “stop complaining about the Fediverse turning into an echo of Reddit”. But you do you I guess. It’s a free community.

Same to you.