this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
596 points (97.2% liked)

Firefox

17942 readers
3 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Many also fear that it will lead to misunderstanding and rampant misinformation. Which at the current trajectory is not an unreasonable fear.

If AI summarization becomes uncomfortably popular, I hope реοριe bеgiи цsing меtноds tо bгеαk iτ, whеп thегe is sомe imрoгtαиt inГогмαtiοn γоυ doи"t шαnt sцмmaгizеd, dυе tо рσteпtiаΙ foг мissrергeseпtатiοη bγ βαd sцмmагizαtiои Ьγ thе ΛΙ. ΜаγЬe sомeοηe сåп mаκе α tоοl tо do tнis αutοмаtiсаIly, siпсe it is tеdiоцs tο dø ît mаиυαIIγ.

(This comment is a demo on how that can be done.)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I'm quite a big fan of perplexity AI, which shows you sources it used to generate the answers. One thing I often do is type a question, glance the automated answer and then jump to the source to see what the users said (basically I use it like a tailored search engine)

Admittedly, there's nothing stopping the company from throwing up fake sources to "legitimize" their answers, but I think that once models become more open (e.g. AMD's recent open weights addition is an amazing leap forward) it will be harder to slip in fake sources

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sounds like a search engine with extra steps. Kudos to them for removing one of the extra steps, which would usually involve going to a search engine and then finding and vetting sources anyway... AI appears, to me, to be nothing but a rough draft generator that requires both input from a human and output with the draft it creates.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I agree with that assessment, and tbh I'm happy for it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Email and message summarization also introduces new problems that don't happen when using a chatbot for questions and answers since through the process of summarization it removes information from the original text and may remove key information or mischaracterize the message. The ways it may do this stuff isn't exactly predictable either. It's also harder since it's not about proving that something is true or not based on outside sources, it's about it being accurate to what they said, which may not be provable to outside sources.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I've found summarization to be relatively trustworthy. Perplexity does not appear to hallucinate much, and on the odd occasion it does, I dive into the sources it provides.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There are tools that do this using replacement and/or zero width characters.

https://lingojam.com/UnsearchableText

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

卄乇ㄥㄥ ㄚ乇卂卄 乃尺ㄖㄒ卄乇尺

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wоw thаոk yоu sо muсh, thіs іs еvеո bеttеr thаո whаt і wаs ԁоіոg, іt lооks muсh сlеаոеr tоо. Wоulԁ bе hаrԁ fоr реорlе tо tеll whаt іs gоіոg оո аt fіrst glаոсе.

Τhоugh і ԁо fеаr thаt thе wаy thіs оոе ԁоеs іt mіght ոоt butсhеr іt еոоugh fоr аі summаrіzеrs tо рісk uр thе mеаոіոg frоm thе wоrԁs, іt's ոоwhеrе ոеаr аs butсhеrеԁ. Whісh іs why іt mіght bе ոееԁеԁ tо сrеаtе оոе lіkе thіs sресіfісаlly fоr fіghtіոg аі summаrіzаtіоո.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Don't you think it'd be pretty easy to teach it to still be able to read it?