Sure, I do know it is a bit hypocritical to be essential of AI, particularly generative AI, and use it like some kind of sick occasion trick. Nevertheless, I am a journalist and that is like doing science, kinda. Google Pocket book LM, Google’s AI summarization system, has a brand new function to information its audio summarization function, with a concentrate on sure subjects and sources, and it is each fairly sensible and kind of haunting.
Introduced right this moment, Google Labs, the search firm’s website for AI instruments, has carried out this newest addition and customers can check it out for themselves. I needed to present it a bit of knowledge that’s considerably nuanced but I do know fairly properly so it is arduous to seek out a better option than one thing you have written.
I handed it a bit I had written earlier right this moment, which is essential of opt-out insurance policies relating to AI information scraping, and watched two hosts summarize it for the purpose of serving to take notes. Aside from calling opt-out the “Choose O U T” mannequin, it kinda nails it.
The 2 AI hosts handle to get to my fundamental opinion in a roundabout manner and seem like they’re earnestly and level-headedly criticising the factor that made them exist within the first place (information scraping). It then goes on to argue that customers needs to be extra proactive about their information use and that every one hope is not misplaced within the AI information conflict.
Within the second interpretation of the identical article, I requested the AI hosts to focus a bit extra on Elon Musk and his controversies, simply to see how far outdoors of my article it might go.
Aside from somewhat ire at Musk’s identify, it continues to concentrate on the identical fundamental level, and even makes errors in speech patterns, like saying X, then calling it Twitter. It matches “ums” and “ahs” in now and again, which is surprisingly lifelike.
We observed many of those similar issues when testing out the podcast perform earlier this month however the Pocket book perform is a step above as you possibly can ask it follow-up questions across the article. I requested it for the essential arguments in my piece and it gave a succinct four-point reply, going over a couple of rationales to be essential of information scraping, and particularly the issues with opt-out insurance policies.
When repeated a second time, I caught a couple of similarities, just like the male host calling AI firms sneaky in each variations. The feminine host additionally says “The long run is formed by the now” in some vogue twice on the second try.
Nevertheless, the arrogance with which the hosts converse feels worrisome to me. There is a suggestions loop right here, the place, at a second’s discover, you possibly can have a professional-sounding host, telling you “the reality” by a supply you have shared. Within the case of my article, my argument, whether or not you agree or not, is comparatively simple.
It will get some small bits of knowledge fallacious, like saying firm homeowners should opt-out, when it is really customers, nevertheless it’s totally on the cash. How does one thing like this put together a possible reader for one thing deeper and extra philosophical?
And, in consequence, what makes writers maintain writing when their work may be summarized by two very pleasant voices who can place the knowledge in a manner the reader needs? Basically, our skill to know the phrases in entrance of us requires a lot higher abilities than the power to learn an AI’s abstract, and language is so multifaceted that we should not belief it to get it proper.
Like I stated at first, this seems like a spooky occasion trick however language feels a lot larger than an LLM, nevertheless giant, can actually perceive.