4 ms·

But they have the potential. We'll see if it breaks into public. People at some point were even saying Tikto will replace search engines. Both of which can st

But they have the potential. We'll see if it breaks into public. People at some point were even saying Tikto will replace search engines. Both of which can still happen.

cactusplant7374 4y ago
I don’t think they do. At least not in a safe way. The AI doesn’t understand meaning or the underlying material and concepts. I’m sure filters will be put into a pipeline but it will never be as good as letting the human sniff out the correct answers.
- nomel 4y ago
  Are we talking about chat bots, or their implementations in 2022?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- forgotusername6 4y ago
  Today I asked chatGPT what Einstein's favourite food was. It gave a reasonable answer about him liking simple foods. The worrying thing is that I was satisfied with the result. It was plausible. It could well be true. There is a good chance that this kind of AI might provide the right kind of response that a large percentage of the public find convincing enough to not bother with additional research.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    This reminds me of an article about how phones killed ripley’s believe it or not and the Guinness book of records - both of which are kind of like “solidified” bar conversation. Now if someone at the bar asks about Einstein’s favorite foods, people just whip out phones and find an answer (doesn’t even have to be correct) and the conversation ends. Before you could go all night discussing it from attempts at first principles - you might be entirely wrong but you had fun.
  - eastbound 4y ago
    The universal truth for people is often different than the truth, and AI has to return the convenient truth. Example. People are persuaded that women can do two things at the same time and men cannot. Despite countless counterexamples, the original study positioning everyone on a bell curve with only 6% difference in time of execution, and without checking for the quality of the results (“254 plus 786 equals 126 quick mafs!!!”), it is blatantly false, but any search engine that would return that it is false would make itself rejected by humans.
- lerchmo 4y ago
  "Will never be" is an overly confident statement for any technical field. Predicting the future is hard and predicting the future with an un-bounded time horizon is pretty near impossible.

But they have the potential. We'll see if it breaks into public. People at some point were even saying Tikto will replace search engines. Both of which can still happen.

cactusplant7374 4y ago

I don’t think they do. At least not in a safe way. The AI doesn’t understand meaning or the underlying material and concepts. I’m sure filters will be put into a pipeline but it will never be as good as letting the human sniff out the correct answers.

nomel 4y ago
Are we talking about chat bots, or their implementations in 2022?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
forgotusername6 4y ago
Today I asked chatGPT what Einstein's favourite food was. It gave a reasonable answer about him liking simple foods. The worrying thing is that I was satisfied with the result. It was plausible. It could well be true. There is a good chance that this kind of AI might provide the right kind of response that a large percentage of the public find convincing enough to not bother with additional research.
- bombcar 4y ago
  This reminds me of an article about how phones killed ripley’s believe it or not and the Guinness book of records - both of which are kind of like “solidified” bar conversation. Now if someone at the bar asks about Einstein’s favorite foods, people just whip out phones and find an answer (doesn’t even have to be correct) and the conversation ends. Before you could go all night discussing it from attempts at first principles - you might be entirely wrong but you had fun.
- eastbound 4y ago
  The universal truth for people is often different than the truth, and AI has to return the convenient truth. Example. People are persuaded that women can do two things at the same time and men cannot. Despite countless counterexamples, the original study positioning everyone on a bell curve with only 6% difference in time of execution, and without checking for the quality of the results (“254 plus 786 equals 126 quick mafs!!!”), it is blatantly false, but any search engine that would return that it is false would make itself rejected by humans.
lerchmo 4y ago
"Will never be" is an overly confident statement for any technical field. Predicting the future is hard and predicting the future with an un-bounded time horizon is pretty near impossible.