Geek Stuff category archive

A font of fallacious fakery? You bet your sweet bippy. At the Psychology Today website, Emily Ko discusses the spread of fake content on the inner webs–something that has proliferated thanks to AI bots and warns that we must not allow the algorithm to do our thinking for us.

She makes three main points; follow the link for a detailed exploration them.

• Fake content spreads faster because it triggers strong emotions that elicit quicker responses.
• Biases and social media algorithms combined make people more likely to believe and trust fake content.
• In an AI-driven world, consumers must rely less on social proof and more on critical thinking.

And, while we are on the subject, the Charlotte Observer reports:

A Charlotte-area man pleaded guilty to using AI to manipulate music streaming platforms billions of times to siphon royalties worth over $8 million, federal authorities said Thursday.

Truthful? At that Psychology Today website, New York University professor Vasant Dhar argues that truthfulness and accuracy are not their creators’ primary concerns.

Here’s a bit from his article:

We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that LLMs are not designed to be truthful, but to ensure that the narrative “makes sense” in any context. Given a context, LLMs are trained to generate what should come next in the developing narrative. Confabulations—plausible- sounding distortions or fabrications—are part of its repertoire, regardless of whether they correspond to truth or facts in our world.

Given the hype about (and the unquestioning faith that some are placing in) AI, I commend it as a timely and worthwhile read.

There’s a reason that, when I need to buy a new appliance, the first thing I say to the salesperson is, “I don’t want anything smart.”

________________

*With apologies to Harry Shearer for stealing the title of one his regular features.

A criminal co-conspirator? El Reg reports that “AI is apparently good for the bottom line if your business is crime.”

Details at the link.

Charles Ferguson, a pioneer in website development, looks at the hype surrounding AI and hears a rhyme from his early career. Here’s a tiny bit from his article (emphasis added):

Most AI technologists and entrepreneurs are wildly optimistic. They anticipate revolutionary advances in medicine, the elimination of hard physical labor, radically accelerated productivity growth and universal abundance. . . .

But sincerity often accompanies naivete, as I know all too well. Thirty years ago, I founded the startup that developed the first software tool enabling anyone to build a website — and I totally drank the Kool-Aid. We told ourselves that our product would allow truth-tellers and innovators to bypass gatekeepers, liberating and enlightening everyone. Social networks would, of course, do the same and together we would create a decentralized, egalitarian paradise of unfiltered truth. How wrong we were.

When I look at the AI landscape, heavily populated by extremely young founders, I see the same naivete.

I commend his article to your attention as a timely read.

________________

*Mark Twain.

Competent legal counsel? Don’t rest your case on it.

Inducing indolence and eroding intellects? I can’t be bothered to answer that, but Robert Lynch gas some thoughts on the matter.

Beware the crypto honey trap.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing? At the Psychology Today website, Mike Brooks explores why many persons don’t see the dangers posed by AI. He makes four main points:

• We laugh at each new AI iteration right up until it’s too late. This is a pattern as old as the steam engine.
• AI agents have already retaliated against humans and disabled their own safety controls unprompted.
• Bad actors are imagining AI-powered schemes that decent people would never think to anticipate.
• There is no enforceable global regulation for autonomous AI agents operating on private computers.

Follow the link for a detailed exploration of each one.

Now they’re even targeting artificial thought.

Cocksure of itself? At the Psychology Today website, Alain Samson warns us that “(b)oth LLMs themselves and users tend to overestimate the correctness of LLMs’ answers.”

Gullible? It’s willing to buy that bridge in Brooklyn.

To be trusted implicitly? At the Psychology Today website, Cornelia C. Walther says no way. Here’s a bit (emphasis added):

In three pre-registered experiments involving more than 1,300 participants, something striking showed: When people had access to an AI assistant, they consulted it on more than half of all tasks—and their accuracy mirrored the AI’s almost perfectly. When the AI was right, they were right. When it was wrong, so were they. Most crucially, they weren’t checking. They were simply adopting the AI’s answers, bypassing both instinct and analysis entirely.