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%.

  • simple@lemm.eeEnglish
    63·
    3 months ago

    Can you confirm that you think with L3, the result would look completely opposite and the summaries of the AI would always beat the human summaries? Because it sounds like you are implying that.

    Lemmy users try not to make a strawman argument (impossible challenge)

    No, that’s not what I said, and not even close to what I was implying. If Llama 2 scored a 47% then 3.1 would score significantly better, easily over 60% at least. No doubt humans can be better at summarizing but A) It needs someone that’s very familiar with the work and has great English skills and B) It needs a lot of time and effort.

    The claim was never that AI can summarize better than people, it was that it can do it in 10 seconds and the result would be “good enough”. People are already doing AI summaries of longer articles without much complaints.

    • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      12·
      2 months ago

      Lemmy users try not to make a strawman argument (impossible challenge)

      This was not a strawman. Please don’t assume lemmy users make logical fallacies when it’s only you who thinks that.

      • simple@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        I guess you missed the part where he said “Oh you said X but you’re actually implying Y? Did you mean Y? Please confirm you actually meant Y.”

        • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          11·
          2 months ago

          That’s my point, from my perspective, there was no switch. Using a one year old model is fine.

          My comment was about how people looking at the same thing, one might think it’s a bait and switch while the other one always knew the second item was being implied.

          The headline never said all AI or latest AI.