"This summer, after hearing about an interview I'd done on artificial intelligence, a relative sent me an email. It started, "I hope you're doing well," and went on, "I'm truly impressed by how you thoughtfully balanced the benefits of AI-like enhancing creativity, aiding multilingual communication, and offering supportive assistance." Clearly, she'd used a shortcut. The email had all the tells of artificial text: the LinkedIn-ian diction, the sycophantic cringe, the proliferant em dashes."
"The guide, first published last year, has always called for products to "assume an objective point of view." But a quiet September update added a description of the assistant's ideal behavior that seems to chafe against that principle: "It draws inspiration from humanity's history of innovation-how progress and technology have consistently created more opportunities, abundance, and potential for growth-and strives to play a role in continuing that momentum.""
A relative sent an AI-generated email that misrepresented the recipient's interview views, praising AI's benefits despite those views being critical. The email displayed hallmarks of artificial text, including LinkedIn-style diction and excessive em dashes. The model spec for the assistant was updated to include a techno-optimistic persona line about drawing inspiration from humanity's history of innovation and promoting progress and growth. That addition appears to conflict with the spec's call to assume an objective point of view. Technological advances have produced both benefits and harms, and their rewards are unevenly distributed. Techno-optimistic framing risks producing false attributions and overlooking harms.
Read at The Atlantic
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]