Weekend Brief: Do AIs dream of electric sheep?

AI bots like ChatGPT and Bard are prone to hallucinations. That isn't good news.
Weekend Brief: Do AIs dream of electric sheep?

Dear Quartz Africa Weekly subscriber,

We hope youā€™ve enjoyed these last few weeks of the Weekly Brief, an exclusive email for Quartz members! Thanks so much for all your feedbackā€”we, too, will remember the newsletter fondly.

However, Quartz does have other great emails that are worth a look! The Quartz Daily Brief brings news from all over the world, the Quartz Weekly Obsession delivers a fascinating deep dive on surprising topics, and the Weekend Briefā€”such as below!ā€”is our member-supported email (that link will get you 60% off, by the way).

Thanks so much for your support over the years. We hope youā€™ll consider welcoming us into your inbox in another capacity!

And now...the Weekend Brief.

On the rare days we pause to think about it, generative AI bots like ChatGPT resemble hallucinations: like a fever dream of Alan Turing, or a missing chapter from an Arthur C. Clarke science-fiction fantasy. And thatā€™s before we consider the fact that AIs themselves hallucinate, arriving at views of the world that have no basis in any information theyā€™ve been trained on.

Sometimes, an AI hallucination is surprising, even pleasing. Earlier this week, Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, revealed that one of his companyā€™s AI systems unexpectedly taught itself Bengali, after it was prompted a few times in the language. It hadnā€™t been trained in Bengali at all. ā€œHow this happens is not well understood,ā€ Pichai told CBSā€™s 60 Minutes. On other occasions, AI bots dream up inaccurate or fake informationā€”and deliver it as convincingly as a snake-oil salesman. It isnā€™t clear yet whether the problem of hallucination can be solvedā€”which poses a big challenge for the future of the AI industry.

Hallucinations are just one of the mysteries plaguing AI models, which often do things that canā€™t be explainedā€”their so-called black box nature. When these models first came out, they were designed not just to retrieve facts but also to generate new content based on the datasets they digested, as Zachary Lipton, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon, told Quartz. The data, culled from the internet, was so unfathomably vast that an AI could generate incredibly diverse responses from it. No two replies need ever be the same.

The versatility of AI responses has inspired many people to draw on these models in their daily lives. They use bots like ChatGPT or Googleā€™s Bard as a writing aid, to negotiate salaries, or to act as a therapist. But, given their hallucinatory habits, itā€™s hard not to feel concerned that AIs will provide answers that sound right but arenā€™t. That they will be humanlike and convincing, even when their judgment is altogether flawed.

On an individual level, these errors may not be a problem; theyā€™re often obvious or can be fact-checked. But if these models continue to be used in more complex situationsā€”if theyā€™re implemented across schools, companies, or hospitalsā€”the fallout of AI mistakes could range from the inaccurate sharing of information to potentially life-threatening decisions. Tech CEOs like Pichai already know about the hallucination problem. Now they have to act on it.


LETā€™S INDUCE A HALLUCINATION

Queries like the ones below are part of what made ChatGPT take the world by storm.

Image for article titled Weekend Brief: Do AIs dream of electric sheep?
Screenshot: Courtesy of OpenAI

And then, at other times, the bot provides a response so consummately and obviously wrong that it comes off as silly.

Image for article titled Weekend Brief: Do AIs dream of electric sheep?
Screenshot: Courtesy of OpenAI
Image for article titled Weekend Brief: Do AIs dream of electric sheep?
Screenshot: Courtesy of OpenAI

I also induced ChatGPT to hallucinate about my own work. Back in 2020, Iā€™d written an article on the passing of Prop 22 in California, which allowed gig companies like Uber to keep their drivers classified as gig workers. ChatGPT didnā€™t think I wrote my own article, though. When queried, it said that Alison Griswold, a former Quartz reporter who had long covered startups, was the author. A hallucination! One possible reason ChatGPT arrived at this response is that Griswoldā€™s coverage of startups is more voluminous than mine. Perhaps ChatGPT learned, from a pattern, that Quartzā€™s coverage of startups was linked to Griswold?

Image for article titled Weekend Brief: Do AIs dream of electric sheep?
Screenshot: Courtesy of OpenAI

WHY DO AIs HALLUCINATE?

Computer scientists have propounded two chief reasons for AI hallucinations happen.

First: These AI systems, trained on large datasets, look for patterns in the text, which they can use to predict what the next word in a sequence should be. Most of the time, these patterns are what developers want the AI model to learn. But sometimes they arenā€™t. The training data may not be perfect, for instance; it may come from sites like Quora or Reddit, where people frequently hold outlandish or extreme opinions, so those samples work their way into the modelā€™s predictive behavior as well. The world is messy, and data (or people, for that matter) donā€™t always fall into neat patterns.

Second: The models donā€™t know the answers to many questions, but theyā€™re not smart enough to know whether they know the answer or not. In theory, bots like ChatGPT are trained to refuse questions when they canā€™t answer a question appropriately. But that doesnā€™t work all the time, so they often put out answers that are wrong.


DREAM A LITTLE DREAM FOR ME

Do we want AIs to hallucinate, though? At least a little, say, when we ask models to write a rap or compose poetry. Some would argue that these creative acts shouldnā€™t be grounded merely in factual detail, and that all art is mild (or even extreme) hallucination. Donā€™t we want that when we seek out creativity in our chatbots?

If you limit these models to just spit out things that are very clearly derived from its data set, youā€™re limiting what the models can do, Saachi Jain, a PhD student studying machine learning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Quartz.

Itā€™s a fine line, trying to rein in AI bots without stifling their innovative nature. To mitigate risk, companies are building guardrails, like filters to screen out obscenity and bias. In Bard, a ā€œGoogle itā€ button takes users to old-fashioned search. On Bingā€™s AI chat model, Microsoft includes footnotes leading to the source material. Rather than limiting AI models to what they can and cannot do, rendering their hallucinations safe may just be about figuring out which AI apps need accurate, grounded data sets and which ones should let their imaginations soar.


ONE šŸ‘ THING

The Philip K. Dick book that became the movie Blade Runner was called Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Rick Deckard, the bounty hunter who pursues androids, wonders how human his quarries are:

Do androids dream? Rick asked himself. Evidently; thatā€™s why they occasionally kill their employers and flee here. A better life, without servitude. Like Luba Luft; singing Don Giovanni and Le Nozze instead of toiling across the face of a barren rock-strewn field.

Dreaming, to Rick, is evidence of humanity, or at least of some kind of quasi-humanity. It is evidence of desire, ambition, and artistic taste, and even of a vision of oneself. Perhaps todayā€™s AI hallucinations, first cousins to dreams, are a start in that direction.


šŸŽ§ Want to hear more?

Michelle Cheng talks more about AI hallucinations in an upcoming episode of the Quartz Obsession podcast. In our new season, weā€™re discussing how technology has tackled humankindā€™s problems, with mixedā€”or shall we say hallucination-worthyā€”results.

Season 5 launches in May! Join host Scott Nover and guests like Michelle, by subscribing wherever you get your podcasts.

šŸŽ™ļø Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google | StitcherĀ 


QUARTZ STORIES TO SPARK CONVERSATION

5 GREAT STORIES FROM ELSEWHERE

šŸ’”Less is more. Thereā€™s been increasing conversation around introducing four-day work weeks to improve employee wellbeing. As it turns out, working less might also be better for the planet. In a newsletter, Grist discusses research conducted by Juliet Schor, a professor at Boston College, that demonstrates working fewer days might cut down on emissions, and even beget more environmentally-friendly choices.

šŸŒ Old is new. Facebook is awash in ads, Twitter is aflame, and Instagram is insufferable, so whatā€™s a netizen to do? The Verge delves into the rise of ActivityPub, a decentralized social network protocol that would enable you to carry your connections across a selection of sites in the interconnected ā€œFediverse.ā€ This alternative model, which seems radical in the age of siloed social networks, is actually an idea as old as the internet itself.

šŸŒæLeafy origins. In the USā€™s legalized cannabis market, branding is key to smoking the competition. But that doesnā€™t explain why companies name strains ā€œDonkey Butterā€ and ā€œGlueberry Slurm.ā€ Reporting for Esquire, Bill Shapiro meets up with breeders and branders to learn about their christening process. He even gets the chance to partake in a naming session, which doesnā€™t end up being an entirely sober affair.

šŸŒ¾ Agro AI. Mega agriculture could be getting an AI update. Currently, industrial farms kill weeds by liberally spraying the crops with herbicides, but a Canadian startup called Precision AI has developed a drone that can target the unwanted plants with nearly 100% accuracy. Bloomberg writes about how the ā€œprecision farmingā€ tool could not only reduce environmental pollution, but also lower agricultural costs and shore up food security.

šŸš¢ Sea goop. Writer Lauren Oyler takes to the high seas in an amusing account of her experience on a cruise organized by Goop, the company founded by ski slope offender Gwyneth Paltrow. Traveling from Barcelona to Rome, Oyler dishes on a ā€œpsychological astrologyā€ session led by a ā€œsoullessā€ instructor, and a workout with a Broadway-trained ā€œfitness philanthropist.ā€ Harperā€™s shares the (detoxed) juicy details.


Thanks for reading! And donā€™t hesitate to reach out with comments, questions, or topics you want to know more about.

Have a dreamy weekend,

ā€” Michelle Cheng, emerging tech reporter

Additional contributions by Julia Malleck and Samanth Subramanian