TED, AI, and the test of time
We recorded 6 claims from this post. 4 were checked against evidence. 2 can’t be checked. 1 more is held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (6)
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: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“I think it’s fair to say that the multimodal stuff still is very buggy, having troubles with basics like the English alphabet.”
Our reading: OpenAI's multimodal capabilities remain very buggy as of April 2024, struggling even with basics like the English alphabet.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The assessment is limited by source-access failures.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“I am just not seeing that as OpenAI’s mission, anymore, especially when they have continued to fail to compensate most of the creators whose work they are drawing on, largely without consent.”
Our reading: OpenAI no longer appears to pursue its mission of ensuring AGI benefits all of humanity, and it has continued not to compensate most creators whose work it uses, largely without their consent.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The factual component is assessable in principle, but the required population and coverage records are missing.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“I warned that LLMs would be used by bad actors, and they increasingly are.”
Our reading: LLMs are increasingly being used by bad actors.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Malicious use can remain undetected.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“I love Khan Academy, but continue to have doubts about whether LLMs are really the right tool for the next step of the job.”
Our reading: He continues to have doubts about whether LLMs are really the right tool for the next step of the job of transforming education.
No horizon
Qualifier: continues to have doubts
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“I don’t think we are any closer to a machine with the wherewithal or the motivation to annihilate the human species than we were a year ago.”
Our reading: He does not think we are any closer to a machine with the wherewithal or the motivation to annihilate the human species than we were a year ago.
No horizon
Qualifier: I don't think
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Observation
“Adding visual data to LLMs hasn’t solved hallucinations.”
Our reading: Adding visual data to LLMs has not solved hallucinations.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: 'Solved' is not defined. The claim is read as hallucinations remaining a material problem, not as adding vision bringing no improvement at all. The evidence packet notes that the GPT-4V system card reports fewer hallucinations during a beta, but that passage is not in the cited excerpt.
Held from this post (1)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.