AI put “synthetic quotes” in his book. But this author wants to keep using it.

Steven Rosenbaum explains how inaccurate quotes got into his book <em>The Future of Truth</em>.

See full article...

 

[graylshaped]

Speaking to Ars in the wake of the controversy, Rosenbaum says he “learned a lesson” and is “going to be much more suspicious” and “reticent to trust” AI outputs going forward.

Nice try, homie. No.

[Looks at the author pic in the article]

Double no. Poser.

 

[graylshaped]

"Rosenbaum made it clear that using AI was the relatively safe “bicycle” option in this analogy. I responded that the supercharged efficiency and catastrophic risk inherent in using AI made it feel a bit more like the motorcycle. Rosenbaum said “that might be fair” and thanked me for “sharpening” his analogy."

This alone tells me that Rosenbaum doesn't understand AI at all. Or analogies...

"Sharpening" and "cutting to pieces" are different things, one might observe.

 

[graylshaped]

To be clear, I am not convinced the tech will EVER be "ready for primetime". The underlying way in which it functions, as a statistical word picker with no concept of meaning, prevents it from ever reaching such a lofty goal. This isn't the general AI you're looking for. While it can be CALLED AI, in the same way Pacman ghost pathing can be called AI, I'm opting to stop using that word because to the general public, it's a loaded term, and companies like Microsoft and "Open"AI know it.

As designed, any use of these models beyond tasks suitable for the "research and report back" level of delegation really is only suitable for amusement purposes.

 

[graylshaped]

Because verification turns into an incredibly hard ask. Carefully check every fact, every quote?

That's the job. If you don't want it, then find a different one. Or maybe use a more reliable process.

 

[graylshaped]

Like J.R.R. Tolkien’s One Ring, AI convinces many of those who use it that they can control its power properly.

Well put. As a wrinkled, green sage described a similar enticement: "Quicker. Easier. More seductive."

 

[graylshaped]

I'm not as much of an anti-AI absolutist as some people here, but this fool shows zero understanding of why he failed to use AI safely and is therefore extremely likely to do so again. It shouldn't be surprising that he then combines that with a total failure to take responsibility. Letting AI create a mountain of garbage for you and then trying to clean that garbage will never work.

It was wonderful, and made me feel powerful and on top of the world... "and then it betrays you in ways that are just really quite horrible."

You know who says that? Recovering addicts. Admitting one has a problem is both the hardest and the easiest step. Recognizing the addiction will always be there, waiting for you to think you have it under control, has to happen to get past the denial stage.

edit: I see @Uncivil Servant saw this, also. However, in reality, most alcoholics DO ask if they need one more drink--and find a rationale for the answer to be yes. Exactly as we see Mr. Rosenbaum doing.

 

[graylshaped]

Sure, the author maintains the final responsibility for whatever's in the book. He's the one that requested the AI help that led to the "synthetic quotes" being published, and didn't catch the error in what he got from the AI.

Rush committee chairman Otter as an AI model: "You fucked up! You trusted us."

 

[graylshaped]

The Turing Test ends up mistaking exactly how easily fooled humans are in assuming something is actually intelligent. Including themselves.

The Imitation Game isn't an intelligence assessment. It measures the ability to fake it in binary terms, with "good enough" as a threshold.

 

[graylshaped]

Making mistakes faster - encouraging to the Freshman in their first English course. I remember mine, when we all thought we were pretty smart and then we all got D or F! Definitely got my attention and that never happened again. Writing is hard. It takes concentration. That's the nature of communication.

Anecdote: Formal departmental policy at my undergraduate university's English department was "No incoming freshman knows how to write" and all "A's" proposed for papers in 100-level classes had to be reviewed and approved in staff meetings.

 

[graylshaped]

Recently, I prompted ChatGPT 5 mini, "Without querying any outside or online resources, retell the story of the hit film [REDACTED]."

The VERY next action ChatGPT 5 mini took was to search wikipedia.

I asked it if wikipedia was considered an outside or online resource.

It said yes.

T_T

That's what I what to expect from an intern reluctantly hired because he's the nephew of a big client who cheated his way through a mediocre college.

 

[graylshaped]

Recently at work I was using AI to help write some documentation. When I saw some obvious errors I added the prompt:
The 1st rule of AI club is don't make things up.
The 2nd rule of AI club is don't make things up.
Seemed to help and it went back comparing to source documents to fix things up. Will definitely be doing more manual reviews before publishing though.

At some point one doesn't have to tell a dog "And don't shit on the rug" every time one runs to the grocery store, but we want to pretend "AI" models are intelligent...

 

[graylshaped]

Kermit was truly wise.

Are you implying Miss Piggy represents the Dark Side?

 

[graylshaped]

I really think there's more to the Animal House <-> TechBro comparisons than might be immediately apparent.

"Who should we tap for the replacement for [insert name of failed cabinet secretary]?"

"Put Neidermeyer on it. He's a sneaky little shit just like you are."


Yes. Yes, I think you are correct.