Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://dair-community.social/users/emilymbender/statuses/109716252737038243">Prof. Emily M. Bender(she/her) (emilymbender@dair-community.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 23:10:50 JST</a><a href="https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender" title="emilymbender@dair-community.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/76831-48-20221219012403.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Prof. Emily M. Bender(she/her)" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Prof. Emily M. Bender(she/her)</a><div><a href="https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/109716249225156006" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a></div></section><article><p>As Gizmodo documents, CNET claimed that they had editors fact-checking everything the text synthesis machine (so-called "AI") wrote, but editors fact-checking synthesized text are being asked to do a different job from editors fact-checking the work of actual journalists.</p><p>&gt;&gt;</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/1064486#notice-2340575">In conversation</a><time datetime="2023-01-19T23:10:50+09:00" title="Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 23:10:50 JST">Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 23:10:50 JST</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/109716252737038243" rel="external" title="Sent from dair-community.social via ActivityPub">dair-community.social</a></span></span><a href="https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/109716252737038243">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/630409">Screencap:
CNET has claimed that all of its AI-generated articles are “reviewed, fact-checked and edited” by real, human staff. And each post has an editor’s name attached to it in the byline. But clearly, that alleged oversight isn’t enough to stop ChatGPT’s many generated mistakes from slipping through the cracks.Usually, when an editor approaches an article (particularly an explainer as basic as “What is Compound Interest”), it’s safe to assume that the writer has done their best to provide accurate information. But with AI, there is no intent, only the product. An editor evaluating an AI-generated text cannot assume anything, and instead has to take an exacting, critical eye to every phrase, world, and punctuation mark. It’s a different type of task from editing a person, and one people might not be well-equipped for, considering the degree of complete, unfailing attention it must take and the high volume CNET seems to be aiming for with its ChatGPT-produced stories.</a></label><br><a href="https://cdn.masto.host/daircommunitysocial/media_attachments/files/109/716/251/212/186/423/original/64ba043cf2cb4989.png" rel="external">https://cdn.masto.host/daircommunitysocial/media_attachments/files/109/716/251/212/186/423/original/64ba043cf2cb4989.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Prof. Emily M. Bender(she/her) (emilymbender@dair-community.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 23:10:50 JST Prof. Emily M. Bender(she/her)
in reply to
As Gizmodo documents, CNET claimed that they had editors fact-checking everything the text synthesis machine (so-called "AI") wrote, but editors fact-checking synthesized text are being asked to do a different job from editors fact-checking the work of actual journalists.
>>
In conversationThursday, 19-Jan-2023 23:10:50 JST from dair-community.socialpermalink
Attachments
1. Screencap: CNET has claimed that all of its AI-generated articles are “reviewed, fact-checked and edited” by real, human staff. And each post has an editor’s name attached to it in the byline. But clearly, that alleged oversight isn’t enough to stop ChatGPT’s many generated mistakes from slipping through the cracks. Usually, when an editor approaches an article (particularly an explainer as basic as “What is Compound Interest”), it’s safe to assume that the writer has done their best to provide accurate information. But with AI, there is no intent, only the product. An editor evaluating an AI-generated text cannot assume anything, and instead has to take an exacting, critical eye to every phrase, world, and punctuation mark. It’s a different type of task from editing a person, and one people might not be well-equipped for, considering the degree of complete, unfailing attention it must take and the high volume CNET seems to be aiming for with its ChatGPT-produced stories.
  https://cdn.masto.host/daircommunitysocial/media_attachments/files/109/716/251/212/186/423/original/64ba043cf2cb4989.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice