Image by Mario Gogh, from Unsplash
Can AI Understand Color Without Seeing It?
- Written by Kiara Fabbri Former Tech News Writer
- Fact-Checked by Sarah Frazier Former Content Manager
The research demonstrates that ChatGPT understands common color metaphors, but fails to understand new ones.
In a rush? Here are the quick facts:
- AI struggles with novel or reversed color metaphors.
- Colorblind and color-seeing people interpret metaphors similarly.
- Painters outperformed others on new color metaphors.
The research demonstrates that ChatGPT and other AI tools excel at processing basic color metaphors, yet fail to understand creative metaphors. Scientists studied human and ChatGPT responses to metaphors such as “feeling blue” and “seeing red” to determine the language processing capabilities of the AI systems, as first reported by Neuroscience News (NN).
The study, led by Professor Lisa Aziz-Zadeh at the USC Center for the Neuroscience of Embodied Cognition, found that color-seeing and colorblind people performed similarly when interpreting metaphors, suggesting that seeing color isn’t necessary to grasp their meaning.
However, people with hands-on-experience, such as painters, demonstrated superior abilities in interpreting complex metaphors, including “the meeting made him burgundy.”
ChatGPT, which processes huge amounts of written text, did well on common expressions and offered culture-informed explanations. For example, NN reports a case where the bot described a “very pink party” as being “filled with positive emotions and good vibes.” But it often stumbled on unfamiliar metaphors or when asked to reverse associations, such as figuring out “the opposite of green”
“ChatGPT uses an enormous amount of linguistic data to calculate probabilities and generate very human-like responses,” said Aziz-Zadeh, as reported by NN. “But what we are interested in exploring is whether or not that’s still a form of second hand knowledge, in comparison to human knowledge grounded in firsthand experiences,” he added.
The study was a collaboration among neuroscientists, computer scientists, and artists from institutions including USC, Google DeepMind, and UC San Diego. As AI develops, researchers say combining sensory input with language might help it better understand the world in human-like ways.
Image by Terrillo Walls, from Unspalsh
Judges Strike Down “Click-to-Cancel” Rule
- Written by Kiara Fabbri Former Tech News Writer
- Fact-Checked by Sarah Frazier Former Content Manager
A federal appeals court has struck down the FTC’s “click-to-cancel” rule, saying the agency didn’t follow required legal procedures.
In a rush? Here are the quick facts:
- Judges say FTC skipped legally required economic review.
- Rule aimed to simplify canceling subscriptions.
- Businesses weren’t given enough time to comment.
The court said the FTC, under Chair Lina Khan at the time, didn’t follow the legal rulemaking process. “While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices […] the procedural deficiencies of the Commission’s rulemaking process are fatal here,” the judges wrote .
The FTC had updated a decades-old rule which aimed to stop companies from deceptive practices by establishing clear terms and straightforward cancellation procedures. But Ars reports that it skipped a key step: doing a full economic analysis before finalizing the rule. The law says this is required when a rule is expected to have over $100 million in economic impact.
The internal judge issued a warning about excessive compliance costs, but the FTC chose not to release the analysis for public review before finalization. Ars reports that the judges determined that this procedural decision prevented businesses and industry organizations from providing timely feedback.
The ruling said allowing this shortcut could “open the door to future manipulation of the rulemaking process.”
Republicans on the FTC had opposed the rule from the start. One, Melissa Holyoak, warned it was rushed before the 2024 election and “may not survive legal challenge.” She referred to it as “nothing more than a back-door effort at obtaining civil penalties in any industry where negative option is a method to secure payment.”
In contrast, Ars reports that Lina Khan had said at the time, “Businesses make people jump through endless hoops just to cancel a subscription […] Nobody should be stuck paying for a service they no longer want.”
