AI successes

[Mr Celine]

No, you're not. The laptop was to be disposed of and the hard drive shredded. If I was upgrading the drive, I'd be checking the manuals too. As it was, I didn't care.

Am I the only person in the world that dismantles old hard drives and uses the discs as Christmas tree decorations?

 

[Mr Celine]

Back on topic, I used copilot at work for the first time earlier this year.
A client had emailed me a 4 page land registry document in Bulgarian (cyrillic characters). I copied it into copilot and input 'please translate into English'. Within seconds it output 4 pages, all formatted the same as the original, including headings in bold, different size font etc. It all made sense. I was well impressed.

Last month my client emailed me another 4 page Bulgarian document, so again I asked copilot to translate into English.
It output a one page summary.
I asked for the whole thing.
It output two pages. It had also randomly changed the plot reference numbers.
I asked it to ensure that formatting was the same, numbers were the same and nothing was left out. At last, 4 pages, albeit headings etc were not in larger font and random words were in bold.
I asked it to save it as a PDF on my sharepoint drive.
It output a link to the saved document. Except it wasn't, it was a link to an apparently random website.
I asked for the real link. It output another link, to a different but equally random website.
I asked it to try again, and to try the link itself and verify it was correct.

At last, I had a 4 page document translated and reasonably formatted. At which point I realised this document was the same as the one I'd been sent before.

 

[briantrumpet]

Back on topic, I used copilot at work for the first time earlier this year.
A client had emailed me a 4 page land registry document in Bulgarian (cyrillic characters). I copied it into copilot and input 'please translate into English'. Within seconds it output 4 pages, all formatted the same as the original, including headings in bold, different size font etc. It all made sense. I was well impressed.

Last month my client emailed me another 4 page Bulgarian document, so again I asked copilot to translate into English.
It output a one page summary.
I asked for the whole thing.
It output two pages. It had also randomly changed the plot reference numbers.
I asked it to ensure that formatting was the same, numbers were the same and nothing was left out. At last, 4 pages, albeit headings etc were not in larger font and random words were in bold.
I asked it to save it as a PDF on my sharepoint drive.
It output a link to the saved document. Except it wasn't, it was a link to an apparently random website.
I asked for the real link. It output another link, to a different but equally random website.
I asked it to try again, and to try the link itself and verify it was correct.

At last, I had a 4 page document translated and reasonably formatted. At which point I realised this document was the same as the one I'd been sent before.

When I've asked it to modify photos in specific ways, each time I've asked it to modify one aspect, it's gone beyond its brief and changed other aspects, almost like it's bored with just doing one specific thing and wants to show off how much it could do if only you asked it to. At least if it's a photo you can see where it's made stuff up, but if it were technical writing beyond one's comprehension, you'd be stuffed.

 

[swee'pea99]

Back on topic, I used copilot at work for the first time earlier this year.
A client had emailed me a 4 page land registry document in Bulgarian (cyrillic characters). I copied it into copilot and input 'please translate into English'. Within seconds it output 4 pages, all formatted the same as the original, including headings in bold, different size font etc. It all made sense. I was well impressed.

Last month my client emailed me another 4 page Bulgarian document, so again I asked copilot to translate into English.
It output a one page summary.
I asked for the whole thing.
It output two pages. It had also randomly changed the plot reference numbers.
I asked it to ensure that formatting was the same, numbers were the same and nothing was left out. At last, 4 pages, albeit headings etc were not in larger font and random words were in bold.
I asked it to save it as a PDF on my sharepoint drive.
It output a link to the saved document. Except it wasn't, it was a link to an apparently random website.
I asked for the real link. It output another link, to a different but equally random website.
I asked it to try again, and to try the link itself and verify it was correct.

At last, I had a 4 page document translated and reasonably formatted. At which point I realised this document was the same as the one I'd been sent before.

I think you have to call that a qualified success.

 

[swee'pea99]

When I've asked it to modify photos in specific ways, each time I've asked it to modify one aspect, it's gone beyond its brief and changed other aspects, almost like it's bored with just doing one specific thing and wants to show off how much it could do if only you asked it to. At least if it's a photo you can see where it's made stuff up, but if it were technical writing beyond one's comprehension, you'd be stuffed.

My wife asked it to 'take out the trolley in the background' and that was enough. It disappeared, seamlessly and perfectly. A modest success, but 'er indores was pleased.

 

[C R]

Back on topic, I used copilot at work for the first time earlier this year.
A client had emailed me a 4 page land registry document in Bulgarian (cyrillic characters). I copied it into copilot and input 'please translate into English'. Within seconds it output 4 pages, all formatted the same as the original, including headings in bold, different size font etc. It all made sense. I was well impressed.

Last month my client emailed me another 4 page Bulgarian document, so again I asked copilot to translate into English.
It output a one page summary.
I asked for the whole thing.
It output two pages. It had also randomly changed the plot reference numbers.
I asked it to ensure that formatting was the same, numbers were the same and nothing was left out. At last, 4 pages, albeit headings etc were not in larger font and random words were in bold.
I asked it to save it as a PDF on my sharepoint drive.
It output a link to the saved document. Except it wasn't, it was a link to an apparently random website.
I asked for the real link. It output another link, to a different but equally random website.
I asked it to try again, and to try the link itself and verify it was correct.

At last, I had a 4 page document translated and reasonably formatted. At which point I realised this document was the same as the one I'd been sent before.

Yep, sounds like a common experience.

 

[swee'pea99]

Oh, here's another...

My schnolly dentists, who somehow took me on as an NHS patient, have been trying to make up for it by bullying me into having 'Dental Hygiene' appointments not two but three times a year. I was already grumbling at two. Now I've never really put much faith in these dental hygiene appointments. They've always felt to me like paying £85 to have someone spend half an hour making something that's perfectly clean enough really really clean. And I'm not really bothered about having really really clean teeth; perfectly clean enough works for me. I think I take care of my own dental hygiene perfectly adequately, using floss and Te-Pe sticks every night. I'm sorted, thanks.

Of course if you Google 'Is a dental hygienist worth spending money on?', where are all the top hits going to come from? Dental practices. All of whom are raking it in by persuading people to spend large sums for what my gut tells me is a pointless procedure. So big surprise when all the 'best advice' Google offers tells you how important it is, and preventative this and holistic that, until you ask Google AI to use any source other than ones that stand to make money out of dental hygienists, and Google AI does as it's told, and comes up with:

So that's saved me £170 a year right there. Or £255 a year, if I took my dentist's 'expert' advice, rather than Google AI's.

 

[FishFright]

Oh, here's another...

My schnolly dentists, who somehow took me on as an NHS patient, have been trying to make up for it by bullying me into having 'Dental Hygiene' appointments not two but three times a year. I was already grumbling at two. Now I've never really put much faith in these dental hygiene appointments. They've always felt to me like paying £85 to have someone spend half an hour making something that's perfectly clean enough really really clean. And I'm not really bothered about having really really clean teeth; perfectly clean enough works for me. I think I take care of my own dental hygiene perfectly adequately, using floss and Te-Pe sticks every night. I'm sorted, thanks.

Of course if you Google 'Is a dental hygienist worth spending money on?', where are all the top hits going to come from? Dental practices. All of whom are raking it in by persuading people to spend large sums for what my gut tells me is a pointless procedure. So big surprise when all the 'best advice' Google offers tells you how important it is, and preventative this and holistic that, until you ask Google AI to use any source other than ones that stand to make money out of dental hygienists, and Google AI does as it's told, and comes up with:

View attachment 16542

So that's saved me £170 a year right there. Or £255 a year, if I took my dentist's 'expert' advice, rather than Google AI's.

Expert advice vs an advertising broker's latest jolly ... Tough choices

 

[swee'pea99]

Expert advice vs an advertising broker's latest jolly ... Tough choices

Say what? Sorry, but would you mind explaining that, because it makes no sense to me.

 

[FishFright]

Say what? Sorry, but would you mind explaining that, because it makes no sense to me.

Your dentist, a professional, gave u one set of advice and Google , an advert broker, uses its 'AI' to take info from the top searches and turns it into something concise and readable. Which saves Google paying Adsense to the websites its taken the info from.

These 'top searches ' are not chosen by the quality of the information but are selected to be the most likely , based on previous use, for you to click on .

At no point did the 'AI' check the veracity of the presented information.


Hope that helps.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Oh, here's another...

My schnolly dentists, who somehow took me on as an NHS patient, have been trying to make up for it by bullying me into having 'Dental Hygiene' appointments not two but three times a year. I was already grumbling at two. Now I've never really put much faith in these dental hygiene appointments. They've always felt to me like paying £85 to have someone spend half an hour making something that's perfectly clean enough really really clean. And I'm not really bothered about having really really clean teeth; perfectly clean enough works for me. I think I take care of my own dental hygiene perfectly adequately, using floss and Te-Pe sticks every night. I'm sorted, thanks.

Of course if you Google 'Is a dental hygienist worth spending money on?', where are all the top hits going to come from? Dental practices. All of whom are raking it in by persuading people to spend large sums for what my gut tells me is a pointless procedure. So big surprise when all the 'best advice' Google offers tells you how important it is, and preventative this and holistic that, until you ask Google AI to use any source other than ones that stand to make money out of dental hygienists, and Google AI does as it's told, and comes up with:

View attachment 16542

So that's saved me £170 a year right there. Or £255 a year, if I took my dentist's 'expert' advice, rather than Google AI's.

The hygienist is looking after your gums not your teeth.

 

[swee'pea99]

Your dentist, a professional, gave u one set of advice and Google , an advert broker, uses its 'AI' to take info from the top searches and turns it into something concise and readable. Which saves Google paying Adsense to the websites its taken the info from.

These 'top searches ' are not chosen by the quality of the information but are selected to be the most likely , based on previous use, for you to click on .

At no point did the 'AI' check the veracity of the presented information.


Hope that helps.

Thanks. You're a chum.

 

[swee'pea99]

Your dentist, a professional, gave u one set of advice and Google , an advert broker, uses its 'AI' to take info from the top searches and turns it into something concise and readable. Which saves Google paying Adsense to the websites its taken the info from.

These 'top searches ' are not chosen by the quality of the information but are selected to be the most likely , based on previous use, for you to click on .

At no point did the 'AI' check the veracity of the presented information.


Hope that helps.

Or to put it another way, my dentist, a professional, with a vested interest in a yes answer, tells me that the answer to the question 'Is a dental hygienist worth spending money on?' is yes.

Google AI, specifically briefed not to 'scrape the websites below' but to use only authoritative sources that don't stand to make money out of a yes answer, concludes there's bugger all evidence that it does any good at all, and such sources, the NHS, say, say that such procedures should be based 'entirely on clinical need'. Which would be indicated by tartar build-up, which I don't have, or gum disease, which I don't have.

So, you run along and get your teeth sparkly clean, as per your 'professional', and I'll continue to engage with AI, because I think it can be helpful, as long as you don't just take everything it says at face value, and I think there's a more interesting disussion to be had than 'AI: it's bad, n'kay?' Or possibly, given recent evidence, not.

 

[FishFright]

Or to put it another way, my dentist, a professional, with a vested interest in a yes answer, tells me that the answer to the question 'Is a dental hygienist worth spending money on?' is yes.

Google AI, specifically briefed not to 'scrape the websites below' but to use only authoritative sources that don't stand to make money out of a yes answer, concludes there's bugger all evidence that it does any good at all, and such sources, the NHS, say, say that such procedures should be based 'entirely on clinical need'. Which would be indicated by tartar build-up, which I don't have, or gum disease, which I don't have.

So, you run along and get your teeth sparkly clean, as per your 'professional', and I'll continue to engage with AI, because I think it can be helpful, as long as you don't just take everything it says at face value, and I think there's a more interesting disussion to be had than 'AI: it's bad, n'kay?' Or possibly, given recent evidence, not.

That's Brexit level reasoning . Don't believe experts when you can google your favourite answer.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I have found that Google or AI has helped frame more pertinent questions for my GP about my wife’s illness problems. Our GP surgery are not renowned for their proactivity, but are very good at treating symptoms.