Australian government assessment of AI vs. human performance
« previous post |
"AI worse than humans in every way at summarising information, government trial finds:
A test of AI for Australia's corporate regulator found that the technology might actually make more work for people, not less." Cam Wilson, Crikey (Sep 03, 2024)
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.
For the full government report, click on the link embedded on "answer" in the second paragraph of the Crikey article above. The remainder of the Crikey summary article itself may be found in its sister publication, Mandarin, here:
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%.
Human summaries ran up the score by significantly outperforming on identifying references to ASIC documents in the long document, a type of task that the report notes is a “notoriously hard task” for this type of AI. But humans still beat the technology across the board.
Reviewers told the report’s authors that AI summaries often missed emphasis, nuance and context; included incorrect information or missed relevant information; and sometimes focused on auxiliary points or introduced irrelevant information. Three of the five reviewers said they guessed that they were reviewing AI content.
The reviewers’ overall feedback was that they felt AI summaries may be counterproductive and create further work because of the need to fact-check and refer to original submissions which communicated the message better and more concisely.
The report mentions some limitations and context to this study: the model used has already been superseded by one with further capabilities that may improve its ability to summarise information, and that Amazon increased the model’s performance by refining its prompts and inputs, suggesting that there are further improvements that are possible. It includes optimism that this task may one day be competently undertaken by machines.
But until then, the trial showed that a human’s ability to parse and critically analyse information is unparalleled by AI, the report said.
“This finding also supports the view that GenAI should be positioned as a tool to augment and not replace human tasks,” the report concluded.
AI is not going away, but through careful appraisals such as this one from the Australian government, we are gaining a better perspective on its pluses and minuses.
Selected readings
- "The AI threat: keep calm and carry on" (6/29/23)
- "ChatGPT has a sense of humor (sort of)" (6/10/23)
- "InternLM (6/10/23)" — with a long bibliography
[h.t. Kent McKeever]
loon said,
September 4, 2024 @ 2:59 am
"[…]"[…]GenAI should be positioned as a tool to augment and not replace human tasks[…]"[…]" – the adage 'AI should take on the menial tasks, leaving us free to pursue art, but it took the art first' comes to mind. AI produces bullshit [the Frankfurtian term]. It has to, that is how it is currently implemented. There are scant, but some, applications where bullshit is used productively [not as in 'in production' but as in 'furthering the stated goals']. Bureaucracy is not one of them. I applaud the government entity for reviewing this (instead of blindly implementing it), while hoping it happened against the will of the technical staff (as in: 'we do not want or need this, it is bullshit, no need to evaluate')