Does AI suck? Can we fix AI disillusionment?

% 16

Copilot for Microsoft 365 Adoption Package for small- and medium-sized businesses. Learn about our new all-inclusive plan - brightideasagency.com/copilot-adoption
Need an AI plan for your business? Check out Nick's new book, "Who's in the Copilot's Seat?" - brightideasagency.com/book - And if you need more personalized help or advice, check out new engagement options that are available too - brightideasagency.com/engage
----
There is an astonishing amount of disillusionment springing up around AI, and while the AI revolution continues at an amazing pace, there are those who seem to think this is an overblown bubble that will soon burst. Who is right? And who is to blame for this perception? Is AI disappointment real? Is there actually an AI letdown going on?
When we look at products like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Copilot for Microsoft 365, there are certainly learning point, both for us as users, and for the companies, like OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and Microsoft that make them. Is Microsoft Copilot great, or does it suck? Let's explore.
----
Sign up to receive Digital Spotlight, the Bright Ideas Agency monthly mailing mailchi.mp/7f5ac2e809a5/bright-ideas-agency
Check out our website at www.brightideasagency.com
Connect with Nick on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/nickdc/ or the Bright Ideas Agency page at www.linkedin.com/company/brightideasagency/
Links:
Amazon Fresh - arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/04/amazon-ends-ai-powered-store-checkout-which-needed-1000-video-reviewers/
Guide to meat - www.beststopinscott.com/a-guide-to-meat-the-8-cuts-of-beef/
Copilot Copyright Commitment - www.microsoft.com/en-us/licensing/news/Microsoft-Copilot-Copyright-Commitment
WSJ Interview - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uHEPBzYick0.html&
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
1:15 AI is everywhere
4:43 Big tech hasn't done a good job on trust
6:04 What is the impact on users?
7:49 Why I continue to be an AI advocate
10:27 How should businesses approach AI?
Certain parts of this video parody the issues we are currently seeing with AI and use images and video not owned by the publisher to aid in making these points. No infringement of others' ownership is intended, and these resources are included as fair use.
Apart from publicly accessible information, all user data or other related information shared in this video is created for demonstration purposes only. User accounts, passwords, or other data used as part of any demonstrations shown in this video have been created specifically for that purpose and are not any individual or company's private information or data.
Bright Ideas Agency is an Ohio Limited Liability Company. The content of this video is for informational and entertainment purposes only. No guarantees are given in connection with the information shared and you should seek independent technical or business advice before implementing anything you see in this video. If you want to hire us for your project, visit www.brightideasagency.com and get in touch.

Наука

Опубликовано:

4 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 11

@billfrug 5 дней назад

issues I've had are: negation ( prompts which ask specifically not to include something), consistency between refinements - the models don't keep things the same between successive refinements.

@brightideasagency 5 дней назад

Yes, getting gen AI to exclude something is far harder than it makes sense for it to be. The lack of consistency is really a feature though, because a new response is generated each time without reference to the last, you can end up with substantial differences in how similar prompts are responded to.

@paulhiggins5165 4 дня назад

Its's an interesting viewpoint that indemnification makes it ok to use tools built on mass copyright violation- but I see a downside here- what happens if the next IP to be casualy appropriated is your own? If we all agree that it's ok to ignore IP rights as long as we can 'get away with it' are we not creating a world where no one's IP is safe from similar treatment? To use tools built on stolen IP in the hope of creating exploitable IP would seem to be the very definition of building your house on shifting sands.

@brightideasagency 4 дня назад

The idea that customers must stop using a company's products because a claim of infringement has been made against them doesn't stand up to scrutiny. New York Times and others who have brought claims against OpenAI have one perspective on their use of content, and OpenAI (and clearly Microsoft too) have a different one. As to my view, I've shared it in another video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kaHFzo3RlKw.html The fact is that there is constant litigation going on about who stole IP from someone else. Going back to 2022 HBR was reporting in a general IP infringement issue in big tech (hbr.org/2022/08/big-tech-has-a-patent-violation-problem), and you'll recall that just recently Apple had to pull infringing watches from the market when it was found guilty of infringing another's patent. The expectation that businesses don't deal with the products of companies that are being sued for infringement is not sound. Ultimately, every business decision we take has risk associated with it. Imagine if you were a software creator who decided to build a tool leveraging Apple's infringing technology. You'd be out of luck. Fundamentally your comment paints indemnification in the negative, but this is not reasonable. As a business owner, I buy insurance to create indemnity, I adopt contracts that offer indemnity; indemnification is the means through which we can de-risk reasonable actions we take in business that ordinarily would create greater risk. If a company with the scale and bank account balance of Microsoft is willing to provide indemnification for your use of their product then this both helps de-risk it, but also should signal that they believe their legal position is sound.

@paulhiggins5165 3 дня назад

@@brightideasagency Thanks for your reply. My point re indemnification was not about it's utility or even it's moral status- I was simply making the point that this is a blade with two edges and those whose seek to exploit the IP of others freely without permission can expect in turn that their own work will also be exploited by others in the same way- and by availing oneself of the sheild of indemnification one is implicity agreeing to this outcome. The casual appropriation of intellectual property by AI developers is not a singular one off event safely contained in the past, it is an ongoing insatiable hunger for the data with which they must feed their machines in order to improve them- thus to use this technology is to implicitly accept that anything you create with it will in turn be fed into those machines. So any value you might create with generative technology may itself be undermined by this technology if that value is then appropriated and diluted by it's use as trainng material. In short anything you make with these tools will itself be available in the future to anyone who uses these tools- not directly but in the form of close approximations that will dilute the value you have made but in such a way as to prevent you from stopping them doing it.