Step 1: Lead off with AI hype. AI is "profound"!! It helps people "unlock their potential"!!
There is some useful tech that meets the description in these paragraphs. But I don't think anything is clarified by calling machine translation or information extraction "AI".
>>
And then another instance of "standing in awe of scale". The subtext here is it's getting bigger so fast --- look at all of that progress! But progress towards what and measured how?
And then a few glowing paragraphs about "Bard", which seems to be the direct #ChatGPT competitor, built off of LaMDA. Note the selling point of broad topic coverage: that is, leaning into the way in which apparent fluency on many topics provokes unearned trust.
>>
Let's sit with that prev quote a bit longer. No, the web is not "the world's knowledge" nor does the info on the web represent the "breadth" of same. Also, large language models are neither intelligent nor creative.
>>
Next some reassurance that they're using the lightweight version, so that when millions of people use it every day, it's a smaller amount of electricity (~ carbon footprint) multiplied by millions. Okay, better than the heavyweight version, but just how much carbon, Sundar?
>>
"High bar for quality, safety and groundedness" in the prev quote links to this page:
Reminder: The state of the art for providing the source of the information you are linking to is 100%, when what you return is a link, rather than synthetic text.
>>
Finally, we get Sundar/Google promising exactly what @chirag_shah and I warned against in our paper "Situating Search" (CHIIR 2022): It is harmful to human sense making, information literacy and learning for the computer to do this distilling work, even when it's not wrong. >>
Why aren't chatbots good replacements for search engines? See this thread:
As OpenAI and Meta introduce LLM-driven searchbots, I'd like to once again remind people that neither LLMs nor chatbots are good technology for information access.
Why are LLMs bad for search? Because LLMs are nothing more than statistical models of the distribution of word forms in text, set up to output plausible-sounding sequences of words.
Either it's a version of ChatGPT OR it's a search system where people can find the actual sources of the information. Both of those things can't be true at the same time. /2
Also: the output of "generative AI", synthetic text, is NOT information. So, UK friends, if your government is actually using it to respond to freedom of information requests, they are presumably violating their own laws about freedom of information requests. /3
It is depressing how often Bender & Koller 2020 is cited incorrectly. My best guess is that ppl writing abt whether or not LLMs 'understand' or 'are agents' have such strongly held beliefs abt what they want to be true that this impedes their ability to understand what we wrote.
Or maybe they aren't actually reading the paper --- just summarizing based on what other people (with similar beliefs) have mistakenly said about the paper.
>>
Today's case in point is a new arXiv posting, "Are Language Models More Like Libraries or Like Librarians? Bibliotechnism, the Novel Reference Problem, and the Attitudes of LLMs" by Lederman & Mahowald, posted Jan 10, 2024.
A quick thread on #AIhype and other issues in yesterday's Gemini release: 1/
#1 -- What an utter lack of transparency. Researchers form multiple groups, including @mmitchell_ai and @timnitgebru when they were at Google, have been calling for clear and thorough documentation of training data & trained models since 2017. 2/
In Bender & Friedman 2018, we put it like this: /3
With the OpenAI clownshow, there's been renewed media attention on the xrisk/"AI safety" nonsense. Personally, I've had a fresh wave of reporters asking me naive questions (+ some contacts from old hands who know how to handle ultra-rich man-children with god complexes). 🧵1/
As a quick reminder: AI doomerism is also #AIhype. The idea that synthetic text extruding machines are harbingers of AGI that is on the verge of combusting into consciousness and then turning on humanity is unscientific nonsense. 2/
t the same time, it serves to suggest that the software is powerful, even magically so: if the "AI" could take over the world, it must be something amazing. 3/
"[False arrests w/face rec tech] should be at the heart of one of the most urgent contemporary debates: that of artificial intelligence and the dangers it poses. That it is not, and that so few recognise it as significant, shows how warped has become the discussion of AI,"
>>
"We have stumbled into a digital panopticon almost without realising it. Yet to suggest we live in a world shaped by AI is to misplace the problem. There is no machine without a human, and nor is there likely to be."