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%.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    If I want to get a better sense of lemmy than headlines, that 47% success at summarizing all the posts is good enough and much faster than I can even skim

    If I want to code a new program, that 47% is probably pretty solid at structure and boilerplate so good enough. It can save me a lot of time

    If I want to summarize the statuses of my entire team, that 47% may be sufficient for a Slack update to keep everyone up to speed but not enough to send to management

    If I’m writing my thesis, that 47% is abject failure

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you miss key information the summary is useless.

      If the structure of the code is bad then using that boilerplate will harm your ability to maintain the code FOREVER.

      There are use cases for it, but it has to be used by someone who understands the task and knows the outcome they’re looking for. It can’t replace any measure of skill just yet, but it behaves as if it can which is hazardous.