3 ms·
But in fact they are changing over time -- this is an expectations treadmill. When you get something newer and better, it highlights the flaws in what you had
by aetherson 2y ago
But in fact they are changing over time -- this is an expectations treadmill. When you get something newer and better, it highlights the flaws in what you had before.
- scubbo 2y agoThat is true _in general_, but not in this specific case (hence why I specified "not over the timescale being explored here"). A modern cigarette-lighter would indeed have been a life-changing tool to a caveman but is indeed disposable junk today. The point being made by the original comment (with which I agree) was that many criteria-for-usefulness - primarily that of reliability or a lack of hallucination - have remained static; with successive generations of tools being (falsely) claimed to meet them, but then abandoned when the next hype-train comes along. I certainly agree that _some_ aspects of AI models are indeed improving (often drastically!) over time (speed, price, supported formats, history/context, etc.) - but they still _all_ fall _drastically_ short on the key core requirement that is required in order to make them Actually Useful. "X is better than Y" does not imply "where Y failed to be useful, X now succeeds".