Oops! How Google bombed, while doing pretty much exactly the same thing as Microsoft did, with similar results
We recorded 8 claims from this post. 2 were checked against evidence. 6 can’t be checked. 3 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (8)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“I am not saying with certainty that we are for witnessing the same movie all over again, but should anybody blithely accept the reassurances of some very interested parties when AI has such a long history of demos that never quite make it to solid product? I don’t think so.”
Our reading: People should not blithely accept Microsoft's and OpenAI's reassurances that chatbot errors will be ironed out, since AI has a long history of demos that never become solid products.
No horizon
Qualifier: AI has a long history of demos that never become solid products
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“Since neither company has yet subjected their products to full scientific review, it’s impossible to say which is more trustworthy; it might well turn out that Google’s new product is actually more reliable.”
Our reading: Without full scientific review it is impossible to say whether Google's or Microsoft's chatbot is more trustworthy, and Google's may turn out to be more reliable.
No horizon
Qualifier: no full scientific review yet
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“Most likely, neither of them are particularly reliable.”
Our reading: Most likely neither Google's nor Microsoft's chatbot search product is particularly reliable.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“At the very least, someone ought be asking, from business perspective, what’s the moat here, if two companies are basically both about to offer the same thing?”
Our reading: Observers should be asking what competitive moat exists in chatbot search when Google and Microsoft are about to offer basically the same thing.
No horizon
Qualifier: two companies about to offer basically the same thing
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“And it’s not just that AI has a fairly spotty track record for taking demos into reliable products; and it’s not just that hallucinatory web search could be dangerous if left to run amok in domains like medicine, it’s that the promises themselves are problematic, when examined from a scientific perspective.”
Our reading: Hallucinating web search could be dangerous if left to run amok in domains like medicine, and promises to fix it are scientifically problematic.
No horizon
Only if: if left to run amok in domains like medicine
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“I first pointed out this risk in 2001, in the fifth chapter of my book The Algebraic Mind, and the problem has persisted ever since. To blithely assume that the problem will soon go away is to ignore 20 years of history.”
Our reading: The hallucination problem in neural networks has persisted since 2001, so assuming it will soon go away ignores 20 years of history.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The 2001 book was about cognitive models, not chatbots or text generators. Treating its risk as 'hallucination' is an interpretation.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Forecast
“I do actually think that these problems will eventually get ironed out, possibly after some important fresh discoveries are made, but whether they get ironed out soon is another matter entirely.”
Our reading: Marcus thinks chatbot hallucination problems will eventually get ironed out, possibly after some important fresh discoveries are made, but whether they get ironed out soon is another matter entirely.
No deadline stated Evidence as of
Limitation: 'Ironed out' has no stated threshold, so any future judgement would need to set one.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“If they don’t get ironed out soon —and they might not– people might quickly tire of chat based search, in which BS and truth are so hard to discriminate, and eventually find themselves returning to do their searches the old-fashioned, early 21st century way, awe or not.”
Our reading: If hallucinations are not fixed soon, which they may not be, people may quickly tire of chat-based search and return to traditional search.
No horizon
Only if: if hallucinations are not ironed out soon
Held from this post (3)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: Hallucinations are inherent to neural network language models, a byproduct of how they compress inputs and lose track of factual relations.
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: Despite seven years and roughly $100 billion of investment since 2016, driverless cars' errors have not gone away.
- The two reviews read the claim differently