I feel like this is a good educational goal but a very poor execution.
We're meant to assume correct sentences were written by humans and AI adds glaring factual errors. I don't think it is possible at this point to tell a single human written sentence from an AI written sentence with no other context and it's dangerous to pretend it is this easy.
Several of the AI images included obvious mistakes a human wouldn't have made, but some of them also just seemed like entirely plausible digital illustrations.
Oversimplifying generative AI identification risks overconfidence that makes you even easier to fool.
Loosely related anecdote: A few months ago I showed an illustration of an extinct (bizarre looking) fish to a group of children (ages 10-13ish). They immediately started yelling that it was AI. I'm glad they are learning that images can be fake, but I actually had to explain that "Yes, I know this is not a photo. This animal is long extinct and this is what we think it looked like so a person drew it. No one is trying to fool you."
I think it's a perfect (and subtle) way to signal that refreshing is unnecessary to see the latest data without wasting UI space explicitly explaining it. It was my favorite thing about the UI and I will be borrowing it next time I design a real-time interface where the numbers matter more than the precise timing.
ABI Research | Oyster Bay, New York | On Site | Full Time / Part Time / Interns
IT Assistant - Oyster Bay, New York
We are looking for someone with a passion for technology who will help monitor and maintain existing systems, assist with new and ongoing IT projects, and provide outstanding support to employees.
Responsibilities include:
- Providing phone and technical support to local and remote employees
- Configuring desktops & laptops and installing required software
- Monitoring and maintaining servers and their associated services
- Diagnose and troubleshoot general network and hardware problems
ABI Research | Oyster Bay, New York | On Site | Full Time
We are looking for a full-time employee to join our small development team in Oyster Bay to focus on developing fast, clean APIs and help with database and application architecture. Team members enjoy comprehensive benefits and good opportunities for professional growth and developing new skills.
Some experience with the following languages, frameworks, and technology is beneficial, but not required:
> After all “squares” are sold, billboards will be printed and put up in the following cities: New York, Los Angeles, Toronto, London, Madrid, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Moscow, Tokyo.
This is interesting in its own right, but the Assange use case doesn't really make sense to me. Wikileaks doesn't want the encryption to be broken after a certain amount of time, they want it broken based on the condition of assassination.
If I may offer a simple UI suggestion: Make the result box read only. Combined with the minimalist UI this makes it very confusing for first time experimenters.
Also, I would suggest a submit button for clarity (and tablets).
We're meant to assume correct sentences were written by humans and AI adds glaring factual errors. I don't think it is possible at this point to tell a single human written sentence from an AI written sentence with no other context and it's dangerous to pretend it is this easy.
Several of the AI images included obvious mistakes a human wouldn't have made, but some of them also just seemed like entirely plausible digital illustrations.
Oversimplifying generative AI identification risks overconfidence that makes you even easier to fool.
Loosely related anecdote: A few months ago I showed an illustration of an extinct (bizarre looking) fish to a group of children (ages 10-13ish). They immediately started yelling that it was AI. I'm glad they are learning that images can be fake, but I actually had to explain that "Yes, I know this is not a photo. This animal is long extinct and this is what we think it looked like so a person drew it. No one is trying to fool you."