I agree begrudgingly, some AI tools have some helpful uses, with certain specific tasks.
But just like you @Picks_by_Nisha illustrated, any AI-generated content needs to be supervised and fact-checked by an actual human who understands both the material and the task at hand.
The problem is not just widespread (ab)use of AI but also the shortage of said humans.
(But generative AI art and the complete disregard for intellectual property in all media will be something I can never forgive or tolerate.)
It took me an hour to pay a bill last night because the AI kept disconnecting accounts and support (now AI) was hallucinating solutions. These companies all fell for the hype hook, line and sinker. It’s a degrading algorithm that works great as a contained tool but needs constant human oversight.
The pattern across Amazon, Meta, Uber, and Microsoft is consistent: heavy AI usage generated costs but not proportional outcomes, and leadership has begun to say so publicly.
The employees were told that you must use AI as much as possible or lose their jobs.
Well, they did what you told them!
The fact that management didn’t see AI use trolling being a response to their edict is indicative of their Dilbert Boss status.
Would love to see some Dilbert cartoons addressing the current AI push… if only… hey Claude…
The OP’s choice language seems to me fairly spot-on - which is saying something, given the sheer amount of similar false flags over the last dozen years or so…
To be fair, they are not really in any legal danger. No prosecutor, cop, or human of any kind will think that’s actually problematic. This is purely an Amazon issue, albeit a significant one. I can easily see Amazon shutting them down for “suspected illegal activity” or some nonsense, even without any review or oversight by a person, much less without any actual legal concern.
THAT would have been self destructive, and, as we all know, the only destructive tendencies that AI is really good at is imploding Amazon systems and shutting down sites.
This article reminds me of an acquaintance who said (said it was on tic tok or whatever) a leading US official made disparaging comments about how ugly King Charles’ wife, the Queen was. FALSE. We’re going to see a lot more of this BS where AI is taken as gospel.
I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Humans too believe lots of things that are demonstrably false. They adopt the beliefs that they encountered early in their existence, and will not change them.
So now computers are doing it. It is nothing new.
Even scientists, who are supposedly believing that which is supported by evidence, are prone to do it. Max Planck famously said:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Humans have been doing this for millennia. You should be used to it by now.
The problem now though is that instead of a few thousand people “hallucinating” the same thing over the course of months it can be tens of millions in a few minutes.
We know that many humans believe nonsense. We also know that some humans are experts with decades of study and experience in a certain field, with a long reputation that gives them credibility when they say things. If a Nobel Laureate in math tells me I’m doing something wrong, I take that seriously.
Chatbots are like talking to someone who thinks the Earth is hollow because one time they didn’t see the curb and stepped into the street hard near a church and heard a ringing sound, like a bell.
The problem is that people think chatbots know what they are talking about. Their creators and supporters claim they have fixed the bugs, put in guardrails, told it not to believe certain falsehoods, even when told they are true by users. Of course, they do it anyway.
