In both this, and other “recent progress” I don’t see much attention to the flaws of AI.
1) Data fed AI is incomplete. Geography example: AI will show some, but not all cities, some, but not all counties, some, but not all of any topic. The result is GIGO.
2) Data fed AI is biased. Example. AI treated SPLC as a source of factual, objective data when the data from SPLC is very biased.
3) AI is designed to recognize a few figures of speech, but not many. Example. On rare occasions it recognizes sarcasm.
4) AI seems to cater its answers to flattery and ignore criticism or corrections of its errors. It will defend wrong answers... it defends SPLC as fact based.
5) There are many more. I query Google’s Gemini the most and maybe my experience is slanted. But in reading about other AI it seems that they also are not ready.
Solution #1.
AI should recognize accepted fact as distinct from speculation and guesses and as distinct from bias and opinion.
Example: Many facts about geography are accepted facts. Ft Gordon was renamed Ft Eisenhower and then renamed again back to Ft Gordon. AI is confused about this.
20 years ago the Far SW corner of GA was split off from zip code 317** and given the zip code 398**. AI does not seem to understand zip code changes, or any factual change in geography.
We do not know who had the most votes in the 2020 election. That is the fact.
AI says there was no vote fraud and it is a fact who won.
The fact is that there was proven vote fraud. The fact is that most types of vote fraud have not been investigated to know what the facts are. We don’t know how much vote fraud.
All we have are allegations by each side. AI should be factual and not present one side as factual when it is opinion.
Ping
I use Claude a lot and its initial answers to anything slightly societal or political are always slanted left. I call it out and provide counter arguments. It moves a bit my way. I repeat several times, each time it becoming less rigidly liberal. I finally ask “Why do I always have to drag you to the truth?”
The last time I had that discussion it responded honestly “My training set (online content) is dominated by left-leaning organizations and people.” I was blown away.
You wrote “AI seems to cater its answers to flattery and ignore criticism or corrections of its errors.”
You can adjust and tune the persona of the AI system. Tell it you don’t want flattery, you want non-nonsense, objective, unvarnished, factual truth.
That is EXACTLY my experience with Brave Leo and ChatGPT.
They regurgitate woke talking points and memes as if they were accepted reality.
It means they read one set of information sources and treat as gospel. Is that because that set dominates, or is it programming? The references are always like Wikipedia, NPR, NYT, etc. Directed to other sites, it will occasionally acknowledge opposing view points but not without significant prompting and pushback. An unsophisticated user will not realize that and simply take it at face value.
The more you use it the more you see patterns of how it interprets things and you realize that it’s programming.