A test of AI for Australia's corporate regulator found that the technology might actually make more work for people, not less.

Artificial intelligence is worse than humans in every way at summarising documents and might actually create additional work for people, a government trial of the technology has found.

Amazon conducted the test earlier this year for Australia’s corporate regulator the Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) using submissions made to an inquiry. The outcome of the trial was revealed in an answer to a questions on notice at the Senate select committee on adopting artificial intelligence.

The test involved testing generative AI models before selecting one to ingest five submissions from a parliamentary inquiry into audit and consultancy firms. The most promising model, Meta’s open source model Llama2-70B, was prompted to summarise the submissions with a focus on ASIC mentions, recommendations, references to more regulation, and to include the page references and context.

Ten ASIC staff, of varying levels of seniority, were also given the same task with similar prompts. Then, a group of reviewers blindly assessed the summaries produced by both humans and AI for coherency, length, ASIC references, regulation references and for identifying recommendations. They were unaware that this exercise involved AI at all.

These reviewers overwhelmingly found that the human summaries beat out their AI competitors on every criteria and on every submission, scoring an 81% on an internal rubric compared with the machine’s 47%.

  • jaybone@lemmy.worldEnglish
    43·
    3 months ago

    The fact that we even had to start using the term AGI when in common parlance AI always meant the same up until recently, shows how goal posts are being moved.

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      3 months ago

      What people mean by AI has been changing for as long as the term has been used. When I was studying CS in the 80s, people said the holy grail was giving a computer printed English text and having it read it aloud. It wasn’t much later that OCR and text to speech software was commonplace.

      Generally, when people say AI, they mean a computer doing something that normally takes a human, and that bar goes up all the time.

      • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        It might also be a question of how we define “intelligence”. We really don’t have a clear definition and it’s a moving target as we find out more

        • “reading aloud is something only a person can do. It requires intelligence”. Here’s a computer doing it. “Oh, that’s not really intelligence, is it”
    • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      To a degree, but, like, video game ai has been called that for decades, I don’t think anyone ever thought it was agi. It’s a more specific term, and it saw use before the big LLM craze started

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      The thing with ‘common parlance’ is that it’s used by people without a deep understanding of the subject. Among AI researchers, there’s never been confusion about this. We have different terms for different things for a reason. The term AGI has been around since the early 2000s.

      It’s like complaining about the terms jig, spoon, spinner, and fly, and saying that back in the day, we just called them fishing lures. They are fishing lures, but these terms describe different types. Similarly, AGI is a form of AI, but it refers to a specific kind.