Media companies are entering deals with OpenAI and other tech firms to direct users to their articles, despite the fact that generative AI products like ChatGPT often struggle with accurately citing sources. This issue raises significant concerns for publishers about the reliability of AI-generated content. Enterprise decision-makers have also expressed serious concern about AI 'hallucinations,' which are false responses generated by the models. These concerns are underscored by studies and reports highlighting the challenges in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of AI tools.
AI success: Real or hallucination? https://t.co/JqFZcDx4ac
Generative AI tools have a nasty habit of spewing falsehoods, and companies are looking to AI providers for ways to keep things real. https://t.co/NlNo3VvPnT
Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools (Paper Explained) https://t.co/arPifMk7Lh
Gen AI has been well-received by enterprise decision-makers. Yet, wary of technology pitfalls from past experience, they have expressed serious concern about hallucinations, which are demonstrably false model responses. Just how challenging is the problem? A recent study found… https://t.co/72wumbOIaf
Generative-AI products such as ChatGPT might never be perfect at finding and citing information. Why, then, are media publishers signing deals with tech companies to direct users to their articles? @matteo_wong on the AI-citation dilemma: https://t.co/kDLXDflRQr
An important part of deals between OpenAI and media companies rests on a very shaky premise: That generative AI products can cite their sources. If the tech is unable to, where does that leave publishers? My latest for @TheAtlantic: https://t.co/Jjs6buhnCV