Working with The Associated Press to provide fresh results for the Gemini app

> I'm much more excited about eventual emergence of underground homebrew models without any guardrails

Not if AI gatekeepers and interest groups have anything to say about it. AI without guardrails could be classified as a "weapon" and made illegal such that we are only allowed to use models produced by regulated entities and meet certain "safety standards" (like how medical software has to be approved by FDA).

Edit: oh, I guess "underground" could be interpreted in a way that these models are still produced and distributed (but secretly, illegally, etc)

Yes. What do you think Grok AI's real-time information being sourced on posts of individual users (similar to early internet) as opposed to established media (like AP)?

The hero we needed

My guess is that they’ll just stuff a few daily headlines into the prompt so that queries about current affairs have some context, rather than re-training the model. Total guess obviously.

Unfortunately this has just been the reality over the last couple years. People just ignore the hallucination problem (or try to say it isn't a big deal). And yet we have seen time and time again examples of these models being given something, told to summarize it, and still hallucinate important details. So you can't even make the argument that its data is flawed or something.

These models will interject information from their training whether or it is relevant or not. This is just due to the nature of how these models work.

Anyone trying to argue that it doesn't happen that often or anything is missing the key problem. Sure it may be right most of the time, but all that does is build a false sense of security and eventually you stop double checking or clicking through to a source. Whether it is a search result, manipulating data, or whatever.

This is made infinitely worse when these summaries are one and done, a single user is going to see the output and no one else will see it to fact check. It isn't like an article being wrong that everyone reading it is reading the same article, can then comment that something is wrong, it get updated, and so on and so forth. That feedback loop is non-existent with these models

Hallucinations are not a big problem with SOTA models at this point, especially grounded against an actual news article.

> I can only hope this data is being incorporated in some way that makes hallucinations less likely.

The key word is "real-time". LLMs can't be trained in realtime, so it's obviously going to call an API that pulls up and reads from AP news, just like their search engine.

The examples that have made news were with iOS. iOS doesn’t really do a summary of the content. It just tries to do a summary of the headline.

The on device model that it uses is also literally 1% the size of the large models like Gemini

The news industry capitulated to big tech the moment it got reliant on big tech for the majority of its revenue. The entire media landscape today is the direct result of that.

It's responsibility laundering — AI can say whatever they want and they can shrug it off by saying bots are sometimes unreliable

Uhh, has your head been in the sand? Look at the average output of your industry without ai. It gets things wrong. It misleads. It hallucinates. It has incentives that fundamentally differ from what the readership seeks in news. The fact that your industry took so readily to the technology to output ever more garbage says it all about the state of the industry vs any condemnation of the fundamental technology.

https://developer.ap.org/ap-media-api/agent/Feeds_and_Linked...

I'm surprised I'd never asked that question before, since the AP and other syndicates began as teletype wire feeds. What do modern newsrooms use as the modern replacement of the AP "wire"?