The AI Reader.
Sunday, August 30, 202644 min read
Working Knowledge · What Could Go Wrong

The serious case for AI welfare never claims the machines feel

A 2024 report by Long, Sebo, Chalmers and colleagues claims only that the possibility is real enough to prepare for, and the leading scientific test for machine consciousness finds no current system that meets it.

10 min read8 sources
Working Knowledge · The Instruments

A model's "37% hallucination rate" was its wrong-answer share on SimpleQA

SimpleQA keeps only questions a strong model already missed and grades a declined answer apart from a wrong one, so the share it marks incorrect was never a measure of how often a model makes things up.

9 min read8 sources
Working Knowledge · The Mechanics

Ask a chatbot for a random number and it says 7

A chatbot has no random-number generator to reach for, so it draws the answer from a probability distribution learned from human text, which is lopsided the same way people are.

9 min read8 sources
Working Knowledge · The Evidence

The diffusion paper behind today's image generators could not take a prompt

Ho, Jain, and Abbeel's 2020 paper reached a state-of-the-art score on the 32 by 32 CIFAR-10 set by learning to reverse a thousand steps of added noise.

8 min read9 sources
Working Knowledge · When AI Breaks

McDonald's spent nearly five years building an AI to take drive-thru orders, then switched it off

It sold the system to IBM in 2021 and ran it at more than 100 US restaurants. McDonald's never published how often it got an order right, though reporting guessed about 85 percent.

8 min read10 sources