You’re probably underestimating AI chatbots

Hello, and welcome to WIRED Start: your weekly roundup of the most important stories, landing in your inbox every Monday.?

This week we’ve joined forces with the WIRED Plaintext newsletter, where editor at large Steven Levy draws on his unmatched list of contacts to provide the long view on tech. You can sign up to Plaintext and more great newsletters from WIRED here.

You’re probably underestimating AI chatbots

In the spring of 2007, I was one of four journalists anointed by Steve Jobs to review the iPhone. This was probably the most anticipated product in the history of tech. What would it be like? Was it a turning point for devices? Looking back at my review today, I am relieved to say it’s not an embarrassment: I recognized the device’s generational significance. But for all the praise I bestowed upon the iPhone, I failed to anticipate its mind-blowing secondary effects, such as the volcanic melding of hardware, operating system, and apps, or its hypnotic effect on our attention. (I did urge Apple to “encourage outside developers to create new uses” for the device.) Nor did I suggest we should expect the rise of services like Uber or TikTok or make any prediction that family dinners would turn into communal display-centric trances. Of course, my primary job was to help people decide whether to spend $500, which was super expensive for a phone back then, to buy the damn thing. But reading the review now, one might wonder why I spent time griping about AT&T’s network or the web browser’s inability to handle Flash content. That’s like quibbling over what sandals to wear just as a three-story tsunami is about to break.

We risk failing to anticipate the potential trajectories of our AI-infused future by focusing too much on the current versions

I am reminded of my failure of foresight when reading about the experiences people are having with recent AI apps, like large language model chatbots and AI image generators. Quite rightfully, people are obsessing about the impact of a sudden cavalcade of shockingly capable AI systems, though scientists often note that these seemingly rapid breakthroughs have been decades in the making. But as when I first pawed the iPhone in 2007, we risk failing to anticipate the potential trajectories of our AI-infused future by focusing too much on the current versions of products like Microsoft’s Bing chat, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Bard.

This fallacy can be clearly observed in what has become a new and popular media genre, best described as prompt-and-pronounce. The modus operandi is to attempt some task formerly limited to humans and then, often disregarding the caveats provided by the inventors, take it to an extreme. The great sports journalist Red Smith once said that writing a column is easy—you just open a vein and bleed. But would-be pundits now promote a bloodless version: You just open a browser and prompt. (Note: this newsletter was produced the old-fashioned way, by opening a vein.)

Typically, prompt-and-pronounce columns involve sitting down with one of these way-early systems and seeing how well it replaces something previously limited to the realm of the human. In a typical example, a New York Times reporter used ChatGPT to answer all her work communications for an entire week. The Wall Street Journal’s product reviewer decided to clone her voice (hey, we did that first!) and appearance using AI to see if her algorithmic doppelg?ngers could trick people into mistaking the fake for the real thing. There are dozens of similar examples.

Generally, those who stage such stunts come to two conclusions: These models are amazing, but they fall miserably short of what humans do best. The emails fail to pick up workplace nuances. The clones have one foot dragging in the uncanny valley. Most damningly, these text generators make things up when asked for factual information, a phenomenon known as “hallucinations”' that is the current bane of AI. And it’s a plain fact that the output of today’s models often have a soulless quality.?

In one sense, it’s scary—will our future world be run by flawed “mind children,” as roboticist Hans Moravec calls our digital successors? But in another sense, the shortcomings are comforting. Sure, AIs can now perform a lot of low-level tasks and are unparalleled at suggesting plausible-looking Disneyland trips and gluten-free dinner party menus, but—the thinking goes—the bots will always need us to make corrections and jazz up the prose.

Today’s chatbots are taking baby steps in a journey that will rise to Olympic-level strides

Yet it’s folly to draw definitive conclusions based on these early versions of the technology, including the shotgun blast of AI updates announced by Google last week. Folks, this is an illusion. Today’s chatbots are taking baby steps in a journey that will rise to Olympic-level strides. Oren Etzioni, former CEO of nonprofit research lab the Allen Institute for AI, told me last week that they’re already getting better. One force driving that trend is the millions of users—including reporters trying to goad the systems into doing nutty things that make good copy—exposing areas in need of improvement. Computer scientists, whose specialty is optimizing, after all, have been hard at work addressing the flaws.

Read the full story here.

Get ahead with these recommended reads

What Really Made Geoffrey Hinton Into an AI Doomer

The AI pioneer is alarmed by how clever the technology he helped create has become. And it all started with a joke, writes Will Knight . Read the full story here.

Twitter’s New CEO, Linda Yaccarino, Has a Fearsome To-Do List

She previously worked to convince brands to shun online ads and instead buy TV spots. Now she must do the reverse—while also handling Elon Musk, writes Paresh Dave . Read the full story here.

How To Delete Your Data From ChatGPT

OpenAI has new tools that give you more control over your information—although they may not go far enough, writes Matt Burgess . Read the full story here.

Self-Driving Cars Are Being Put on a Data Diet

Growing fleets, fancier sensors, and tighter budgets are forcing autonomous vehicle developers to get pickier about what stays on their servers, writes Paresh Dave . Read the full story here.

Until next time

Thank you for reading! We'll be back next Monday with another WIRED Start.

If you enjoyed reading this week’s edition, you can sign up to receive Steven Levy’s long view on tech every Friday exclusively for paid subscribers, or once a month for free. Sign up here.

Don’t forget, you can unlock unlimited access to WIRED’s content with a subscription.?