• TehPers@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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.

    • Fah_Q@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      You sound like a teacher from the 80s telling a student that they won’t always have a calculator with them. Your lack of imagination solving problems with AI is and will remain yours. Automation and AI is going to change the entire world much like the automobile devastated the Horse transportation industry. Just as the Amazon killed the Malls. You just fail to see how you fit into this new strange future, and surprise you just perhaps don’t.