6 ms·

Just another reason that I consider generative AI to be a lot like crypto. A lot of talk about it being the future but really only turns out to be dangerous or

Just another reason that I consider generative AI to be a lot like crypto. A lot of talk about it being the future but really only turns out to be dangerous or useless. I find it incredibly irresponsible that companies are shoving their latest AI tech into all their products when it's still unproven.

pseudosavant 3y ago
Except, unlike crypto, ChatGPT helps me with real day things that I easily find at least $20/month of value from.
- LetsGetTechnicl 3y ago
  I don't necessarily see a problem with it for personal use by a tech-savvy person who is aware of its problems and limitations. Releasing it upon the general public where mis/disinformation is already widespread on the internet is a terrible, terrible idea.
  - pseudosavant 3y ago
    Yes. Only the enlightened like me should get it…smh.
    - LetsGetTechnicl 3y ago
      We don't hand dangerous tools to people without proper training. I don't see why this would be any different.
      - pseudosavant 3y ago
        Really? Anyone can go into a Home Depot and get many dangerous tools with no training.
happytiger 3y ago
AI has so completely disrupting Search that it’s destroyed leading platforms effectiveness in a matter of months. But because of its current lack of optimization for accuracy, we shouldn’t consider it disruptive because it’s not yet proven technology? You can call it dangerous but you can’t call it useless. It’s also only going towards improvement from here, including drastic reductions in hallucinations. You have to remember too that AI models are generally attempting to interpret the intent behind the prompt, so many of these crazy articles are happening because people aren’t yet good at writing clear instructions for AI and AI isn’t yet mature enough to disambiguate poor instructions in its output and is trying to deliver on unclear instructional intents.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 12_throw_away 3y ago
  > It’s also only going towards improvement from here Why?
  - 0xEFF 3y ago
    See for yourself, 4.0 is clearly improved over 3.5.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      True, 5 is a bigger number than 4 so logically it makes sense.
  - tivert 3y ago
    >> You can call it dangerous but you can’t call it useless. It’s also only going towards improvement from here, including drastic reductions in hallucinations. > Why? A pseudo-religious belief in progress, especially the technological kind. It's bullshit. If it were true, 2022 pre-LLM Google would have been better than 2010-era Google, but it most definitely wasn't. Consumer printer technology, for the most part, has been getting worse for decades at this point.
stevenwoo 3y ago
One thing I've noticed about simple one word searches on Bing now - a lot of times it just errors out and closes the Bing app tab you've opened with no explanation to the user. This only started happening after they pushed the AI driven search narrative to make you use it in the app, so apparently single word searches are too much somehow for their version of AI to handle.

pseudosavant 3y ago

Except, unlike crypto, ChatGPT helps me with real day things that I easily find at least $20/month of value from.

LetsGetTechnicl 3y ago
I don't necessarily see a problem with it for personal use by a tech-savvy person who is aware of its problems and limitations. Releasing it upon the general public where mis/disinformation is already widespread on the internet is a terrible, terrible idea.
- pseudosavant 3y ago
  Yes. Only the enlightened like me should get it…smh.
  - LetsGetTechnicl 3y ago
    We don't hand dangerous tools to people without proper training. I don't see why this would be any different.
    - pseudosavant 3y ago
      Really? Anyone can go into a Home Depot and get many dangerous tools with no training.

happytiger 3y ago

AI has so completely disrupting Search that it’s destroyed leading platforms effectiveness in a matter of months. But because of its current lack of optimization for accuracy, we shouldn’t consider it disruptive because it’s not yet proven technology? You can call it dangerous but you can’t call it useless. It’s also only going towards improvement from here, including drastic reductions in hallucinations. You have to remember too that AI models are generally attempting to interpret the intent behind the prompt, so many of these crazy articles are happening because people aren’t yet good at writing clear instructions for AI and AI isn’t yet mature enough to disambiguate poor instructions in its output and is trying to deliver on unclear instructional intents.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
12_throw_away 3y ago
> It’s also only going towards improvement from here Why?
- 0xEFF 3y ago
  See for yourself, 4.0 is clearly improved over 3.5.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    True, 5 is a bigger number than 4 so logically it makes sense.
- tivert 3y ago
  >> You can call it dangerous but you can’t call it useless. It’s also only going towards improvement from here, including drastic reductions in hallucinations. > Why? A pseudo-religious belief in progress, especially the technological kind. It's bullshit. If it were true, 2022 pre-LLM Google would have been better than 2010-era Google, but it most definitely wasn't. Consumer printer technology, for the most part, has been getting worse for decades at this point.

stevenwoo 3y ago

One thing I've noticed about simple one word searches on Bing now - a lot of times it just errors out and closes the Bing app tab you've opened with no explanation to the user. This only started happening after they pushed the AI driven search narrative to make you use it in the app, so apparently single word searches are too much somehow for their version of AI to handle.