Yesterday I talked about Facebook using automated AI system for its security system, and honestly this isn't just Facebook, Instagram and YouTube does this too, and the system is programmed to act in a unique way without reference to unique cases.
For example, there are times when I enter my Facebook password and the system flags it as "wrong" even though it's actually correct, and just trying to enter it repeatedly since you know it's correct actually makes the algo flags the login attempts as "suspicious".
Even though the mistake or error is from the AI, the AI system isn't smart enough to know that the error is from it, it automatically believes it cannot be wrong and the issue must've come from your end.
Now when the AI system fails and to you want a human review because AI cannot reason, then you fall into a roadblock because there are honestly no humans assigned the role of helping to solve unique account problems, because AI has probably taken the bulk of it.
Inasmuch as you think facebook has hundreds of millions of people if not billions and they cannot employ enough people to respond when their AI system fails.
I still think the system is just too daft to understand security and we cannot honestly assign the bulk of security of AI if they're not going to be smart enough to understand unique situations.
They can assign roles without a lot of peculiarities, but I understand don't even know if they want to do that. They already have a billion user and scaled 100%, so why would they do it?
This is the problem with AI at the moment.
It is currently rigid because it is programmed to be so, even with years of constant training and prompting, AI can be very inconsistent and rigid with solving real time problems because it always treats issues and situations as the same.
Now when it comes to output AI is still very much limited because it cannot reason like humans. While its problem solving skills are immaculate, it can still feel drab, sloppy and slurry, and if you're a constant user of maybe Claude, either for extensive research writing or something like that...
you'll see the inconsistencies in its output, how it tends to use similar phrases, ideas and sentences and how that it cannot stand alone unless you heavily edit it or add a human touch to it.
it's not really because they hate it, they just hate how people use it. I'm a huge fan of AI, and how it can consistently make you better in your craft, and in all my usage of AI I've made sure to always use it in ways that complements me.
However, I think the massive dislike for AI is that people don't use it well, they depend solely on it, or they they don't using models that are more superior or add human touches where it is necessary.
A lot of companies have banned their employees from using it, and I think this is because they feel that they're paying for humans and not AI, and they could easily buy higher AI models if that's what they want.
However another thing we have to know is that AI is already smart, but it still fails in areas of peculiarities and specialities and that's why it's easier to recognize AI output and people can go "eewwww" that's AI". Perhaps in the future, when this is better, then maybe no one will have this issue anymore.
