There is a product leader at my company that has started generating product documents from ChatGPT and it atrocious. Now we have product documents that are filled with pages of content vaguely related to what we are working on. They don't use it as a starting point to edit, it's copy and paste it in. They regularly "reveal" that this was all AI, when it is blatantly obvious it is. Not sure how we are supposed to be "innovating" when our products docs are just 2 year old AI filler text.
People are worried about the internet getting filled with AI produced garbage. My job is already filled with AI produced garbage. It seems like this announcement is going to make that a reality for a lot more people.
I'm not anti-AI. I think its going to have a huge impact and soon. But right now it's not good for generating knowledge work.
You must work with better product people than I have, because I'd argue the vast majority of their output pre ChatGPT was atrocious garbage vaguely related to what we were working on.
But the tools don’t do what a lot of people imagine and so we’ll see such misuse be rampant for a long long while.
We don’t take digital pollution or content pollution very seriously yet, but these tools are going to force us to finally do so. There’s a lot of smog coming to our online lives.
I am a DevRel so I work on the business side of the company but my intended readers are developers.
Even though I was a skeptic at first, now I am a believer in practical usage of AI. I really struggle with writing CTAs or conclusive remarks. My writing style is dry and I write technical articles in a step by step manner assuming the reader has no to little understanding of the subject matter. I feel like developer do appreciate this writing practice however all long form content need meaningful endings.
I appreciate the help of AI with summarizing, describing what the intended instructions should achieve and telling readers to explore the next step.
My content used to end at "now you know how to do it". This is just too unnatural, writing a meaningful conclusion can be a challange sometimes so AI is helping me a lot.
Writing can be improved. If your position requires better writing try to improve it, not replace your lack of skills with an AI. Using a AI is the same as to pay someone else on Fiverr to write the emails for you.
No. Using AI for this will increase your writing skills as long as you put more than 0 effort into it.
He's presumably not doing 1) paste his draft into ChatGPT, 2) paste the ChatGPT output into the text editor, 3) click publish.
If your objective is to create a well-written and effective document (rather than having AI autowrite some useless email), you wouldn't just blindly publish the ChatGPT output. You would read through the text that ChatGPT outputs and spend a minute reviewing what it wrote and tweaking it to your liking. Over time, as you read the corrected well-written version of your original poorly-written content, your brain naturally picks up on the differences and learns how to write well.
I've experienced this personally with Grammarly. I had very low expectations going in, and I still don't like some of its suggestions, but over time as you see and apply the corrections it suggests, you naturally end up learning and improving your writing skills. It's a great learning tool.
I still don't use spellcheck, and my writing turns out fine.
These tools are fine for casual writers. However, people who write as their primary craft should work to improve their craft. AI (and spellcheck) are just crutches.
Sometimes you get so deep into the weeds that it's difficult to come out and hit the high-level summary.
The parent's use of AI sounds like a perfect tool to help get the brain out of the 100ft view and into the 30,000ft view to write that summary.
I just used chatgpt for a similar purpose, I rewrote several paragraphs from the response and it took me some time iterating on my prompt. But, I'm sold on the use for this purpose. I don't enjoy writing. This helps me become a better writer and saves time.
I work for a data company with an enterprise focus. Anything that goes into the company blog is vetted, researched and published with a reasonably high level quality requirement.
We are not actually interested in content generation or content churn with AI (period). But AI as a personal content helper is proving to be somewhat useful for me.
This is exactly what should happen. The next step is to automate the translation to/from bullshit to normal speech. Then at some point we'll remove the translator and no one will notice.
That's a lovely dream, but the truth is that everyone wants a translation to a different dialect. Customers, developers, marketers, analysts, etc. all want different summarizations of the same bullshit.
Customers: Fault-tolerant queue with high throughput.
Well AI sender writes a email to a bunch of email addresses, one of the AI recipient email agent responds , then another one responds , then one AI email agent responds politely asking everyone to stop hitting the reply all button , and soon the other AI agents respond back to each other saying to stop hitting the respond all button until one big AI agent says “Nobody responds to this last email” …. meanwhile the human sitting in the hotel cube in his office looks at his computer screen and sighs … deja vu!
It sounds absurd but I think this is actually what is going to happen. Corporate speak will become an extremely inefficient protocol only spoken by machines, while the humans only look at the actual content.
What does that mean for Microsoft who get a $ for each encode/decode to the corporate speak protocol? And what does it mean for the companies that can't afford the tithe to Microsoft to automatically encode/decode corporate speak like everyone else?
You're forgetting the part where Microsoft owns the integration, so your options as a new business are "pay Microsoft to decode the emails people are paying Microsoft to encode" or "spend man hours going through those emails without decoding them".
It's starting to make sense to me why this is a billion dollar industry like Google was. Not because of its proposed usefulness but it's ability to create a monopoly where the options are to sign an contract you don't get to negotiate, or be "outcompeted".
It feels like a mirror of Google's relationship with content creation sites. They created and continue to benefit from a reality where the options are "give Google your content for free to index and use as it likes" or "your content isn't discoverable by people".
In the end, everyone types and reads the minimum necessary.
Wonder how lossy this process would be, but given how non-AI-assisted conversations go this could probably be an improvement. Imagine the AI also has extra context from your work files so it can add relevant details.
Yes, having a black box AI reach into my client/employer’s confidential documents to better incorporate their contents in my emails sounds great.
(And I know you’re imagining some adequate and reliable security practice, but those practices are harder to apply to generative AI than to people, where they’re already a clusterf—k. What you’re suggesting is a security specialist’s nightmare)
The article says: "Built on Microsoft’s comprehensive approach to security, compliance and privacy. Copilot is integrated into Microsoft 365 and automatically inherits all your company’s valuable security, compliance, and privacy policies and processes. Two-factor authentication, compliance boundaries, privacy protections, and more make Copilot the AI solution you can trust."
"Architected to protect tenant, group and individual data. We know data leakage is a concern for customers. Copilot LLMs are not trained on your tenant data or your prompts. Within your tenant, our time-tested permissioning model ensures that data won’t leak across user groups. And on an individual level, Copilot presents only data you can access using the same technology that we’ve been using for years to secure customer data."
Considering the "discusion" I just had trying out ChatGPT (3.5, I believe), Step 2, is a bit distant.
It was impressive on general information, but as I got to more specific questions, I got a lot of vague and vaguely incorrect responses. When I provided a specific paper on the topic, it provided similar generalizations.
The weird thing is that it completely fabricated the author's name. No part of the name was anywhere in the paper. Called on the error, ChatGPT then said, "sorry for the error, it's really [Different_Name_2]". Called on that error, it then said similar "sorry for the error it's really [Different_Name_3]", then [Different_Name_4], and [Different_Name_5]... Wrong dates also, but it finally did get the date right (displayed right above the line saying "Author"..."). It also hallucinated employers for these fabricated authors.
It never did provide the right info. When I specifically prompted it with "ou did find the correct date information. Right under that there is a line saying "Author:" and following that, there is the actual author's name and employer. Can you parse and answer me with that actual information about the author?"
It first responded with a red error message. Repeated, it hallucinated ANOTHER fabrication...
I'm just astonished about the way this thing doubles down on it's hallucinations.
This really is the invention of infinitely scaled bullshit.
Edit: Definition of BS is speech or writing produced not specifically to lie or tell the truth, but with utter disregard for the facts. E.g., a BS artist just spins tales that sound good, with neither malicious or deceitful intent, but also with zero care about truth.
I really wish I can just send mail with bulletpoints without all the formality stuff and walk around the egg shells.
But alas, that's the way it is. Reminds me the custom in Japan working culture. There are so many unspoken rules you are expected to follow and it became hinderance.
I had a manager that was like this. Bullet points for complicated stuff, but most of the time the answer was just "OK", "Yes", "No" or perhaps a number if you asked for a quantity. Not even hello/goodbye, just a "Sent from my iPhone".
1. BS Manager jolts down a few lines then AI outputs pompous bullshit from the raw bullshit she wrote.
2. I get the bullshit email and then use AI to distill the bullshit down to the essential bullshit