They think replacing critical thinking with vibe rationalisation is cool and good because they've done fine in life without bothering with the first one.
not vibes… but let’s just keep handing over our critical thinking skills to LLMs that can only predict the most likely next word based on millions of stolen written works…
Whatever the merits of the claim (and it sounds like bullshit to me), they're not reporting it as fact. It's right there in the opening par that it's a claim made by Altman.
Almost all statements of fact in a news article are sourced (which is good), but the phrasing tends to be different depending on whether they believe it. ‘Russian forces have entered Ukraine, according to a NATO spokesperson’ (true) vs ‘The Kremlin accused Ukraine's government of fascism’ (false).
True, context is important, so I wonder: are they reporting "vibes-based" Altman is spreading misinformation, or is it a puff piece where Times journo is a fluffer for Mr Very Important? The latter would still be bad journalism...
Speaking as a journalist, I think it's legitimate to report the claim, but I'd hope they would be (at the very least) challenging its validity. It's ultimately one of those claims that's practically impossible to prove one way or the other.
"Altman's latest unevidenced claim is that his new product does 5% of the entire world's work after just 9 days" is a great lede and a chance to tell the bigger story of how this guy's predictions never come true but investors still throw money at him, but The Times doesn't seem interested in that
Is it likely to be the world's greatest piece of journalism? No. But I just think the initial accusation that they're presenting it as fact is a bit strong.
this is not abornmal but it's how journalists privilege people in power - it is news that Mr. Rich Important Person said something, so we put it in the headline and lead paragraph, and in paragraph 8 maybe we have someone who disagrees
Also, how many new tasks has it created? Every little research task now takes me two to three times as long because I have to work harder to make sure I'm not being lied to.
Came here to say this. People who are supposed to be working keep instead supplying GPT output, and now we have a whole extra layer of filtering it out because it’s so often utter nonsense. And then we fire them if they keep doing it.
The media has become obsessed with the wrong things because free to use AIs seem to have mastered producing media filler (“write me an listicle on the ten best types of pizza”). The real change will be much more limited & tailored - & it’s coming from Microsoft not Altman.
My “vibes based assessment” is that 100% of the claimed benefits of machine based Artificial Intelligence are going to be nullified by human based Genuine Stupidity ☹️
Sam Altman's response to the question "how do you use ai?" on Adam Grant's Rethinking podcast. Altman isn't even using it the way he thinks others are or should be using it
Comments
I also think Altman is saying its capable of 5% of whatever, not that it is actively doing it
https://youtu.be/r7l0Rq9E8MY?si=086L8ZKgMLAHFObD
🤣
You would reach more people, when you add a good description into the Alt-text field.
That is pretty easy, especially, when your image just contain text.
This way, you support visually impaired people and everyone else, who rely on a good filled Alt-text.
#accessibility
That structure naturally downplays the significance of the dubious origin of the claim.
Is it likely to be the world's greatest piece of journalism? No. But I just think the initial accusation that they're presenting it as fact is a bit strong.
Are they presenting it as fact, technically no because they caveat it.
But cognitively, the first sentence front loads the claim in a way that halos it and hypes its legitimacy.
Totally wild how easy it is.
@privateeyenews.bsky.social 🙃
It really is all about the feels these days