this post was submitted on 18 May 2024
174 points (90.7% liked)
Just Post
625 readers
6 users here now
Just post something ๐
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Strongly disagree as unlikely as it sounds, crypto was much less annoying
This is more useful than crypto
Is it? Crypto could generate money for you. This can tell you lies based on its hallucinations.
At least when you cashed out, you knew you were cashing out at the value you were being told you were cashing out at. If there were some weird merger between crypto and AI, you'd sell your AIcoin thinking it was valued at $100 but it would turn out it was actually valued at $2 and the AIcoin just told you it was $100.
I think crypto is stupid and annoying and a waste of energy. This is stupider and more annoying and a bigger waste of energy and, worst of all, officially embraced by every major tech company.
Crypto moves money from one hand to another. It doesn't create value in and of itself.
That's not what I mean. I mean it can personally increase someone's net worth, especially if they check out at the right time.
Yeah, I understood what you mean. I'm saying that's not better because there's no value being created. At least AI is capable of doing some useful work for us.
You can even argue that it can make you money. Invest in a tech company involved in AI, cash out at the right time, boom, "free" money.
And I'm saying the work isn't especially useful if it's wrong all the time.
Coders and artists are already making heavy use of AI, it doesnt magically do everything for you, and you have to check and curate it, but that doesnt make it entirely worthless. It's FAR more useful than crypto
crypto doesn't generate money. It generates numbers that you can sell for money.
Out of curiosity - do you think your opinion will change once on-device (i.e., power efficient) AI becomes the norm?
The capabilities and utility of contemporary LLMs are wildly overstated by many, but the claim that they are completely useless is dubious imo. Nothing they generate can be treated as fact (and shame on those who suggest you do), but I can say with certainty that it has made my life as an indie programmer much easier, and I know Iโm not alone in that.
Okay, sorry, here is my real response since I thought you were talking about something else due to being in two conversations at once in the same thread:
My opinion will change when AIs stop being untrustworthy. Until I can have any sort of certainty that it isn't just making shit up, it won't change.
Not too long ago, I asked ChatGPT to tell me who I am. I have a unique name. I also have a long-established internet media presence under that name. I'm not famous, but I've got enough prominence for it to know exactly who I am.
It had no idea whatsoever. It got it entirely wrong. It said I was a business entrepreneur who gave motivational lectures.
idk bro that sounds like saying search engines aren't useful cuz you couldn't google yourself..
Except I can Google myself. Links and photos come up. None of them say I'm a business entrepreneur who gives motivational lectures.
I'm sorry to break this to you - but you probably weren't in the training dataset enough for the model to learn of your online presence - yes llms will currently hallucinate when they don't have enough data points (until they learn their own limitations) - but that's not a fundamentally unsolvable problem (not even top 10 i'd say)
there already are models that consider their knowledge and just apologize if they can't answer instead of making shit up. (eg claude)
Considering these LLMs are being integrated with search engines in a way that might work toward replacing them, don't you think their training should include knowing who someone is that a bunch of hits come up for when you Google them?