https://futurism.com/the-byte/government-ai-worse-summarizing
The upshot: these AI summaries were so bad that the assessors agreed that using them could require more work down the line, because of the amount of fact-checking they require. If that’s the case, then the purported upsides of using the technology — cost-cutting and time-saving — are seriously called into question.
I think people are allowed to be annoyed, but if thats all you want to talk about i think its a waste of energy? It’s just language, we can call it flubbon if you like and move the conversation along.
Unless we want to get bogged down talking about whether band aids “medical adhesive strips”, which is a perfectly fine conversation to have if that’s what both participants want to talk about.
Because people call it an AI instead of a bunch of related trained predictive algorithms? If the other things were happening (labour discipline, art theft, using a gallon of water to run a bad google search) but people were using whatever term you wanted, what would actually change?
Like, I’m not saying it’s wrong to be annoyed by these companies ad copy, and there’s absolutely people out there who think “AI” is more human than their employees, it’s just a huge amount of time and energy wasted over a relatively minor part of the whole relationship. Even this 3 reply exchange here is probably too much.
