'Generative AI Is Still Just a Prediction Machine'

AI tools remain prediction engines despite new capabilities, requiring both quality data and human judgment for successful deployment, according to new analysis. While generative AI can now handle complex tasks like writing and coding, its fundamental nature as a prediction machine means organizations must understand its limitations and provide appropriate oversight, argue Ajay Agrawal (Geoffrey Taber Chair in Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management), Joshua Gans (Jeffrey S. Skoll Chair in Technical Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Rotman School, and the chief economist at the Creative Destruction Lab), and Avi Goldfarb (Rotman Chair in Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare at the Rotman School) in a piece published on Harvard Business Review. Poor data can lead to errors, while lack of human judgment in deployment can result in strategic failures, particularly in high-stakes situations. An excerpt from the story: Thinking of computers as arithmetic machines is more important than most people intuitively grasp because that understanding is fundamental to using computers effectively, whether for work or entertainment. While video game players and photographers may not think about their computer as an arithmetic machine, successfully using a (pre-AI) computer requires an understanding that it strictly follows instructions. Imprecise instructions lead to incorrect results. Playing and winning at early computer games required an understanding of the underlying logic of the game.

AI's evolution has mirrored this trajectory, with many early applications directly related to well-established prediction tasks and, more recently, AI reframing a wide number of applications as predictions. Thus, the higher value AI applications have moved from predicting loan defaults and machine breakdowns to a reframing of writing, drawing, and other tasks as prediction.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.