If this spirals, we are going to have a lot of writing leak on to the internet with bad facts that were hallucinated by a chatbot and then those documents themselves become even more bad source material. Until the internet is no longer useful for finding truth.
on the Trashfuture pod they've been referring to this as "Hapsburg AI" trashfuture.co.uk
Great pod, great people.
Which is EXACTLY what this article describes. Say goodbye to the ability to Google things and find real answers. www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/here-lies-...
I’m being pushed hard to bring generative and agentic AI to help our case managers be more efficient with their time. The request is to find a AI solution that can listen to conversations and then transcribe them into case notes. I cannot describe how much I do not want this solution.
It seems like many places will do anything other than hire more people to decrease caseloads overall.
The point I always make when faced with this is that what we are paid for in client facing work is to be a partner for our clients in navigating difficulty. Substituting humans for technology creates the illusion of partnership but actually leaves our clients even more alone.
Thank you! I’ve also posted out that for many of our young people in our felony expungement program, a recording of their conversations is an absolute non starter. A human exercises judgement to decide what to include/exclude from a case note. I don’t want to entrust that judgment to AI.
That's not just for felony expungements, there are HUGE atty/client privilege problems with a recording as well as the strategy issue you describe
We’re not a legal shop, we’re a foundation that’s working with University of California, Irvine and the Superior Court of Orange County. We provide care management services alongside UCI who provides highly specialized therapy. Client privilege doesn’t exist for us, so we have to be *very* careful.
Same. Psycho VP who thinks "AI" is his savior tries to push it into everything.
I’m at the forefront of a lot of technological innovations in my sector. With that said, I’m not touching AI if I can avoid it.
There's real and important research being done into how machines might, someday learn. The crap they market as "AI" isn't helpful and I hope that bubble bursts very soon.
I knew this would happen if 🍊won. I knew when I read in 2019 that Put!n wanted his own Wikipedia www.dw.com/en/putin-pro...
The internet isn't dead its just awaiting approval for life saving treatment.
As an undergrad, I’ve always been staunchly against using AI for writing. So much of the value in writing is wrestling with thoughts and weighing ideas—what ends up on paper is merely a physical manifestation of your intellectual growth. The PROCESS is essential, and this is lost entirely with AI.
The issue is that AI-generated content does not cite sources, so we can’t know whether sources used are valid. This is a crucial change. Traditional sources (books, articles, images, even Wikipedia) cite sources. So it’s possible to go check the original source for validity, accuracy, legality, etc
There's reports that this is already beginning to happen to some of the bots.