2d ago

Unmasking AI’s Role in the Age of Disinformation: Friend or Foe?

www.mdpi.com Unmasking AI’s Role in the Age of Disinformation: Friend or Foe?

This study addresses public perception of the relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and disinformation. The level of general awareness of AI is considered, and based on this, an analysis is carried out of whether it may favor the creation and distribution of false content or, conversely,...

You're viewing a single thread.

6 comments

All the AI models probably have baked into them that the company that made them is of prime importance and must be protected at all costs. So misinformation or as the old folks like to call it lies, is abound.
- I don't think we're quite there yet. It's important to align these models, and companies do it. But it's a huge issues that they are biased from the training data, reproduce stereotypes, most of them lean towards the left etc. And they'll have read lots of Reddit posts that Reddit or Meta sucks, or Google is unethical... And it'll show. Even if you try your best as a company to bake something ontop of your models. So yeah, it's a valid concern. But it's not like it were easy for them to do it reliably at this point. At least for large language models. I'm pretty sure it's a different story with other, more specialized machine learning.
  
  What if it was put in as a priority in the design stage?
  
  I'm not a machine learning expert. But I think it's just that we haven't yet learned how to do it yet. It's not a technical matter, or a question where to put it. But more that science has to figure out a lot of things. It'd be massively useful to guide these things. To control whether they hallucinate or tell the truth. To make them just do customer support based on factual information instead of also engaging in intimate cinversations. To strip bias and stereotypes. To make them "safe". But if you look at these systems in practice, you'll see they often fail. And then someone writes a news article every few weeks. And it happens to all current AI systems, even the market leaders. So I figure science just can't do it yet and we're in the early stages. Nobody knows at this point where to put it so a company could trust AI to act exactly in their interest. We might be able to do so, but that's still science fiction undtil we arrive at Skynet.
  They can do some limited things with confined machine learning algorithms until then. Like Youtube recommendations, control your heating thermostats... I'm pretty sure these systems are small enough to have them work reliably to some specification. But LLMs are just very complex things. And a lot of training there happens unsupervised. So they might pick up arbitrary things which are hard to control.
  
  Do you think they have unreleased more sentient and less llm in the labs or do you think we arent near that level of tech yet.
  I often wonder what it would be like if they stuck it into the quantum chip google has or have they already tried it.
  
  I -personally- don't think so. I also read these regular news articles, claiming OpenAI has clandestinely achieved AGI or their models have developed sentience... And they're just keeping that from us. And it certainly helps increase the value of their company. But I think that's a conspiracy theory. Every time I try ChatGPT or Claude or whatever, I see how it's not that intelligent. It certainly knows a lot of facts. And it's very impressive. But it also fails often at helping me with more complicated emails, coding tasks or just summarizing text correctly. I don't see how it is at the brink of AG, if that's the public variant. And sure, they're probably not telling all the truth. And they have lots of bright scientists working for them And they like some stuff to stay behind closed curtains. Most likely how they violate copyright... But I don't think they're that far off. They could certainly make a lot of money by increasing the usefulness of their product. And it seems to me like it's stagnating. The reasoning ability is a huge progress. But it still doesn't solve a lot of issues. And I'm pretty sure we'd have ChatGPT 5 by now if it was super easy to scale and make it more intelligent.
  Plus it's been 2 weeks that a smaller (Chinese) startup proved other entities can compete with the market leader. And do it way more efficiently.
  So I think there is lots of circumstantial evidence, leading me to believe they aren't far off from what other people do. And we have academic research and workgroups working at it and publishing their results publicly. So I think we have a rough estimate of what issues they're facing and what AI progress is struggling with. And a lot of those issues are really hard to solve. I think it's going to take some time until we arrive at AGI. And I think it requires a fundamentally different approach than the current model design.

6 comments