AI chatbots unable to accurately summarise news, BBC finds
-
Extremely?
-
-
benchmarks
Benchmarks are so gamed, even Chatbot Arena is kinda iffy. TBH you have to test them with your prompts yourself.
Honestly I am getting incredible/creative responses from Deepseek R1, the hype is real. Tencent's API is a bit under-rated. If llama 3.3 70B is smart enough for you, Cerebras API is super fast.
MiniMax is ok for long context, but I still tend to lean on Gemini for this.
-
Why do you say that? I have had no reason to doubt their reporting
-
Look at their reporting of the Employment Tribunal for the nurse from Five who was sacked for abusing a doctor. They refused to correctly gender the doctor correctly in every article to a point where the lack of any pronoun other than the sacked transphobe referring to her with "him". They also very much paint it like it is Dr Upton on trial and not Ms Peggie.
-
So there is not any trustworthy benchmarks I can currently use to evaluate? That in combination with my personal anecdotes is how I have been evaluating them.
I was pretty impressed with Deepseek R1.
I used their app, but not for anything sensitive.I don't like that OpenAI defaults to a model I can't pick. I have to select it each time, even when I use a special URL it will change after the first request
I am having a hard time deciding which models to use besides a random mix between o3-mini-high, o1, Sonnet 3.5 and Gemini 2 Flash
-
Heh, only obscure ones that they can't game, and only if they fit your use case. One example is the ones in EQ bench: https://eqbench.com/
…And again, the best mix of models depends on your use case.
I can suggest using something like Open Web UI with APIs instead of native apps. It gives you a lot more control, more powerful tooling to work with, and the ability to easily select and switch between models.
-
Ask a forest burning machine to read the surrounding treads for you, then you will find the arguments you're looking for. You have at least 80% chance it will produce something coherent, and unknown chance of there being something correct, but hey, reading is hard amirite?
-
That's why I avoid them like the plague. I've even changed almost every platform I'm using to get away from the AI-pocalypse.
-
It's a "how the mighty have fallen" kind of thing. They are well into the click-bait farm mentality now - have been for a while.
It's present on the news sites, but far worse on things where they know they steer opinion and discourse.
They used to ensure political parties has coverage inline with their support, but for like 10 years prior to Brexit, they gave Farage and his Jackasses hugely disproportionate coverage - like 20X more than their base. This was at a time when SNP were doing very well and were frequently seen less than 2006 to 2009.Current reporting is heavily spun and they definitely aren't the worst in the world, but the are also definitely not the bastion of unbiased news I grew up with.
Until relatively recently you could see the deterioration by flipping to the world service, but that's fallen into line now.
If you have the time to follow independent journalists the problem becomes clearer, if not, look at output from parody news sites - it's telling that Private Eye and Newsthump manage the criticism that the BBC can't seem to get too
Go look at the bylinetimes.com front page, grab a random stort and compare coverage with the BBC. One of these is crowd funded reporters and the other a national news site with great funding and legal obligations to report in the public interest.
I don't hate them, they just need to be better.
-
Do you mean you rigorously went through a hundred articles, asking DeepSeek to summarise them and then got relevant experts in the subject of the articles to rate the quality of answers? Could you tell us what percentage of the summaries that were found to introduce errors then? Literally 0?
Or do you mean that you tried having DeepSeek summarise a couple of articles, didn't see anything obviously problematic, and figured it is doing fine? Replacing rigorous research and journalism by humans with a couple of quick AI prompts, which is the core of the issue that the article is getting at. Because if so, please reconsider how you evaluate (or trust others' evaluations of) information tools which might help or help destroy democracy.
-
Yeah, haha
Perplexity misquoted BBC News in a story about the Middle East, saying Iran initially showed "restraint" and described Israel's actions as "aggressive"
Perplexity did fail to summarize the article, but it did correct it.
-
That's some weird gatekeeping. Why stop there? Whoever is using a linter is obviously too stupid to write clean code right off the bat. Syntax highlighting is for noobs.
I full-heartedly dislike people that think they need to define some arcane rules how a task is achieved instead of just looking at the output.
Accept that you probably already have merged code that was generated by AI and it's totally fine as long as tests are passing and it fits the architecture.
-
Some examples of inaccuracies found by the BBC included:
Gemini incorrectly said the NHS did not recommend vaping as an aid to quit smoking ChatGPT and Copilot said Rishi Sunak and Nicola Sturgeon were still in office even after they had left Perplexity misquoted BBC News in a story about the Middle East, saying Iran initially showed "restraint" *and described Israel's actions as "aggressive"* -
"If you try hard you might find arguments for my side"
What kind of meta-argument is that supposed to be?
-
I can't stand the corporate double think.
Despite the mountains of evidence that AI is not capable of something even basic as reading an article and telling you what is about it's still apparently going to replace humans. How do they come to that conclusion?
The world won't be destroyed by AI, It will be destroyed by idiot venture capitalist types who reckon that AI is the next big thing. Fire everyone, replace it all with AI; then nothing will work and nobody will be able to buy anything because nobody has a job.
Que global economic collapse.
-
It's not like they're flat earthers they are not conspiracy theorists. They have been told by the media, businesses, and every goddamn YouTuber that AI is the future.
I don't think they are idiots I just think they are being lied to and are a bit gullible. But it's not worth having the argument with them, AI is going to fail on its own it doesn't matter what they think.
-
-
-
Great for turning complex into simple.
Bad for turning simple into complex.
