307
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TehPers@beehaw.org 26 points 4 months ago

You're right. Once it settles into its niches and the hype dies down, it won't be overhyped anymore because everyone will have moved on.

I've been working with generative AI for years now and we still struggle to solve real world problems with it. It isn't useless or anything. It's way too unreliable, and this isn't one of those things where time will solve it - it's being used to solve problems that have no perfect solutions, like human interfacing and generating culturally-appropriate and visually-accurate images. I'd expect it to improve at those tasks over time, but the scope needs to drop from every problem humanity has ever faced to the problems that these models are good at solving.

[-] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago

Correct. Dress it up however you like, but LLM and ML programs are probability gamblers all the way down. We’re building a conversation tool, that doesn’t truly comprehend the language because it’s a calculator at its core - it’s like asking your eyeballs to see in UHF frequencies.

They’re called “computers” for a reason, and we are deep in the myopic tech tree of further and further complexity. The current wave of AI has solid potential, but not globally for all applications. It is a great at ‘digital assistant’ roles and is already killing it in CCTV monitoring software. Mindjourney can make incredible images, but it can’t make art. ChatGPT can write, but it’s a terrible author or speechwriter.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 months ago

Mindjourney can make incredible images, but it can’t make art.

Mostly because you're defining "art" in such a way that being produced by MidJourney disqualifies it automatically.

[-] anachronist@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago

This is the same middlebrow dismissal that AI advocates have been using for years.

"It's just a stochastic parrot." "How do you know that you aren't just a stochastic parrot?"

Well we do know. There are experts on human cognition. They have been studying it for decades. We may not know enough about it to know how to make a computer do it. But we certainly know enough about it to know when a computer chatbot is not doing it.

[-] Aelis@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago

Sorry to break it to you but there is no defining art without disqualifying ai, the subject is so old it's hardly an opinion at this point. Even the most imaginative mating rituals animals can do barely qualifies... And mind you, these have emotions and cognitive capabilities, so something as barebone as the kind of "ai" we make now.. nothing more than a joke art wise.

[-] coffeetest@beehaw.org 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I agree with this. Its wildly misunderstood and it's the name. AI is absolutely the most amazing marketing name for it but its only a thin veneer of our sci fi dreams. Over time that veneer might get a bit thicker but it wont be what people think it will be. It is good at certain things, like you know, being a large language model, but it is a (very) limited subset of what human intelligence is.

[-] Kichae@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 months ago

It's not "widely misunderstood", it's been widely hyped by the people actively selling it. The tech bros are pumping and dumping it, just like with every other tech panacea.

It's not the public, it's the snake oil salesmen.

[-] coffeetest@beehaw.org 4 points 4 months ago

That's what I am saying. The buyers wildly misunderstand it. The seller presents it with a very effective and misleading pitch.

Look at the Intuit CEO who just fired 10% of their labor to pivot to AI to um, "give financial advise." And then goes on to say any other company who doesn't do the same will fall behind and fail. Time will tell but I am going to go with, people will laugh when Intuit is on fire.

[-] anachronist@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

I suspect Intuit fired those workers for other reasons (free file) and are using AI as an excuse because to admit that free-file is an existential threat to their business is to admit that their company has no long term business prospects.

[-] coffeetest@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago

That seems entirely plausible for the staffing change. But Intuit is more than their tax software for example Quickbooks isn't going anywhere. I am sure they do other stuff, probably payment processing and I don't know what else. So they will survive at some level, it would be hard to kill Quickbooks.

this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
307 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37738 readers
355 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS