this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
67 points (92.4% liked)

Technology

59374 readers
7248 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
67
How The New York Times is using generative AI as a reporting tool (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In general, the report found that the AI summaries showed "a limited ability to analyze and summarize complex content requiring a deep understanding of context, subtle nuances, or implicit meaning." Even worse, the Llama summaries often "generated text that was grammatically correct, but on occasion factually inaccurate,"

how is this being accepted? one would have to go through any output with a fine-toothed comb anyway to weed out ai hallucinations, as well as to preserve nuance and context.

it's like the ai tells you that mona lisa has three eyes and a nose and her mouth is closed but her denim jacket is open. you're going to report that in your story without ever looking at the painting?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

These important limitations highlight why it's still important to have humans involved in the analysis process here. The NYT notes that, after querying its LLMs to help identify "topics of interest" and "recurring themes," its reporters "then manually reviewed each passage and used our own judgment to determine the meaning and relevance of each clip... Every quote and video clip from the meetings in this article was checked against the original recording to ensure it was accurate, correctly represented the speaker’s meaning and fairly represented the context in which it was said."

It's literally the paragraph right after.

They verify it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Won't the checking cost more time then to just write it themselves?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

It's harder to create new content than to correct existing content.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

It's 400 hours of audio, the transcripts ended up being 5 million words, and only snippets of it are useful.