overhyped? sucks the soul out of things? genuinely useful tool? bad for the environment? in love with your ai gf...
im curious what people think, ppl are all over the map
Upvote
Upvoted
0
Downvote
Downvoted
what do you think about ai?
posted in
Off Topic
overhyped? sucks the soul out of things? genuinely useful tool? bad for the environment? in love with your ai gf...
im curious what people think, ppl are all over the map
im curious what people think, ppl are all over the map
invest in gold and silver, another 2008 is coming (if not bigger)
invest in gold and silver, another 2008 is coming (if not bigger)
generative AI is mentally retarded. normally i don't try to engage with concepts rather than actual people, but it's actually extremely present and perceptible how many people are actually anti-art with the rise of generative AI and how they think it's "better than what humans can do" and that it'll replace art. the fuckin cum town fat guy stavros halkias of all people said a great piece on it simply by saying "i thought the point of robots was to make them do all the actual labor so humans don't have to work so THEY can paint"
that being said there are use cases for certain things like LLMs (not to do your fucking homework or to read articles for you so you dont have to) as well as a few other niche applications in the business sector
generative AI is mentally retarded. normally i don't try to engage with concepts rather than actual people, but it's actually extremely present and perceptible how many people are actually anti-art with the rise of generative AI and how they think it's "better than what humans can do" and that it'll replace art. the fuckin cum town fat guy stavros halkias of all people said a great piece on it simply by saying "i thought the point of robots was to make them do all the actual labor so humans don't have to work so THEY can paint"
that being said there are use cases for certain things like LLMs (not to do your fucking homework or to read articles for you so you dont have to) as well as a few other niche applications in the business sector
that being said there are use cases for certain things like LLMs (not to do your fucking homework or to read articles for you so you dont have to) as well as a few other niche applications in the business sector
I use an AI code completion tool for C# which is better than the one that ships with Visual Studio. I would have to pay for it, but I currently have a free license. I don't think I would pay money for it. Most modern GPUs can run a small code completion LLM so that's what I'll probably do once I lose this free license. For me it's a minor productivity booster
I use an AI code completion tool for C# which is better than the one that ships with Visual Studio. I would have to pay for it, but I currently have a free license. I don't think I would pay money for it. Most modern GPUs can run a small code completion LLM so that's what I'll probably do once I lose this free license. For me it's a minor productivity booster
I use AI for tedious but simple stuff. Regex, excel formulas, python list comprehension, stuff like that. Usually a 1 liner of some sort that I can thoroughly test without too much effort. Sometimes when I have to implement a new concept or understand some terminology AI is nice as well. "What is X in the context of Y" sort of thing. If the stakes are low that can be a lot quicker and more effective than reading the docs, or it can help you to narrow down what docs you need to be reading. I do not trust AI to be more than like 70% correct even on a good day, so I really don't like using it for anything other than getting a jumping off point or generating something that can very easily be tested and corrected.
Keep it out of art.
I use AI for tedious but simple stuff. Regex, excel formulas, python list comprehension, stuff like that. Usually a 1 liner of some sort that I can thoroughly test without too much effort. Sometimes when I have to implement a new concept or understand some terminology AI is nice as well. "What is X in the context of Y" sort of thing. If the stakes are low that can be a lot quicker and more effective than reading the docs, or it can help you to narrow down what docs you need to be reading. I do not trust AI to be more than like 70% correct even on a good day, so I really don't like using it for anything other than getting a jumping off point or generating something that can very easily be tested and corrected.
Keep it out of art.
Keep it out of art.
AI makes data science so much easier and more accessible. It's what google/stackexchange was on steroids, and I think education as a whole needs to be rethunk. It's capable at carrying you through an entire undergraduate in any math heavy field (possibly also others, but I can't tell).
AI makes data science so much easier and more accessible. It's what google/stackexchange was on steroids, and I think education as a whole needs to be rethunk. It's capable at carrying you through an entire undergraduate in any math heavy field (possibly also others, but I can't tell).
Would be more cool if it didn't somehow make the "tech bro who doesn't know anything about other fields but definitely knows they're all doing it wrong" even more annoying.
Somewhere along the way it went from "Image/text generation is the best way of assessing our ability to learn and generate data from complex distributions" to "artists are cucks and we serve no value and we should just kill them, actually"
Would be more cool if it didn't somehow make the "tech bro who doesn't know anything about other fields but definitely knows they're all doing it wrong" even more annoying.
Somewhere along the way it went from "Image/text generation is the best way of assessing our ability to learn and generate data from complex distributions" to "artists are cucks and we serve no value and we should just kill them, actually"
Somewhere along the way it went from "Image/text generation is the best way of assessing our ability to learn and generate data from complex distributions" to "artists are cucks and we serve no value and we should just kill them, actually"
Concerning art... I think if it's good or worthwhile or beautiful (taking into account the effort or lack of effort), it deserves to float to the top. With the exception of FB boomers, people know if something's garbage or not. It doesn't take anything away from handmade art, just a couple jobs and that's the nature of technological advancement. Just another tool to learn to reach higher than you could before. It's a good thing that the hurdle of visualization has been knocked down for everyone, it's the product that matters more.
Concerning art... I think if it's good or worthwhile or beautiful (taking into account the effort or lack of effort), it deserves to float to the top. With the exception of FB boomers, people know if something's garbage or not. It doesn't take anything away from handmade art, just a couple jobs and that's the nature of technological advancement. Just another tool to learn to reach higher than you could before. It's a good thing that the hurdle of visualization has been knocked down for everyone, it's the product that matters more.
industWith the exception of FB boomers, people know if something's garbage or not.
This is my favourite unexpected side-effect of the AI art boom, in an accelerationist sort of way. I think "art literacy" is already improving a lot, just because now there is greater awareness around paying attention to the quality of what you are consuming beyond its surface level presentation. Slop existed long before AI, and it was humans making it, because almost anything sells if you throw enough money into the production.
[quote=indust]With the exception of FB boomers, people know if something's garbage or not.[/quote]
This is my favourite unexpected side-effect of the AI art boom, in an accelerationist sort of way. I think "art literacy" is already improving a lot, just because now there is greater awareness around paying attention to the quality of what you are consuming beyond its surface level presentation. Slop existed long before AI, and it was humans making it, because almost anything sells if you throw enough money into the production.
This is my favourite unexpected side-effect of the AI art boom, in an accelerationist sort of way. I think "art literacy" is already improving a lot, just because now there is greater awareness around paying attention to the quality of what you are consuming beyond its surface level presentation. Slop existed long before AI, and it was humans making it, because almost anything sells if you throw enough money into the production.
zxpAI makes data science so much easier and more accessible. It's what google/stackexchange was on steroids, and I think education as a whole needs to be rethunk. It's capable at carrying you through an entire undergraduate in any math heavy field (possibly also others, but I can't tell).
Missed this post somehow, but disagree here, at least for the statistics half/portion of data science. There's so much shit statistics advice out there that it's trained on, and I see this a lot as a TA, but if you don't already have a good understanding of the subject it's very easy for the AI to gaslight you into thinking something is true when it's not.
Here's an example:
https://i.imgur.com/kzVOZP4.png
This probably seems reasonable at first glance but this is just incorrect.
That being said models will always improve (wouldn't be surprised if the better AI's can get this right) but when you're first learning things it can be pretty misleading.
[quote=zxp]AI makes data science so much easier and more accessible. It's what google/stackexchange was on steroids, and I think education as a whole needs to be rethunk. It's capable at carrying you through an entire undergraduate in any math heavy field (possibly also others, but I can't tell).[/quote]
Missed this post somehow, but disagree here, at least for the statistics half/portion of data science. There's so much shit statistics advice out there that it's trained on, and I see this a lot as a TA, but if you don't already have a good understanding of the subject it's very easy for the AI to gaslight you into thinking something is true when it's not.
Here's an example:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/kzVOZP4.png[/img]
This probably seems reasonable at first glance but this is just incorrect.
That being said models will always improve (wouldn't be surprised if the better AI's can get this right) but when you're first learning things it can be pretty misleading.
Missed this post somehow, but disagree here, at least for the statistics half/portion of data science. There's so much shit statistics advice out there that it's trained on, and I see this a lot as a TA, but if you don't already have a good understanding of the subject it's very easy for the AI to gaslight you into thinking something is true when it's not.
Here's an example:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/kzVOZP4.png[/img]
This probably seems reasonable at first glance but this is just incorrect.
That being said models will always improve (wouldn't be surprised if the better AI's can get this right) but when you're first learning things it can be pretty misleading.
I've used AI for scanning an essay's grammar and spelling, and it seems useful enough for that. I've also heard (but not tested) that some AIs are way better at translating texts than Google Translate, which seems cool too. Translation is normally expensive and time-consuming, especially for dead languages or highly technical writing, so AI might have a big impact on that field. It seems like it can also decipher cursive/old handwriting.
Nonetheless, it's interesting that despite huge increases in computing power, AI has failed to make a single major discovery. If you imagine a smart human being who had read every medical article and book in existence, you'd assume he would be thinking of new cures, antivenoms, and so on. To my knowledge, AI hasn't done anything even close to this in any field, which shows that it lacks something uniquely human -- maybe creativity or the ability to truly develop new information. It's best to understand generative AI, I think, as "image splicers" or "text splicers." These algorithms don't actually "draw" or "write," they just splice images or words together based on patterns, so it makes sense that it wouldn't make discoveries any more than a really powerful calculator could make discoveries. To quote Edward Feser, "a simulation of X is not the same as X, and. . . we should be especially aware of this when we are ourselves the makers of the simulation."
I've used AI for scanning an essay's grammar and spelling, and it seems useful enough for that. I've also heard (but not tested) that some AIs are way better at translating texts than Google Translate, which seems cool too. Translation is normally expensive and time-consuming, especially for dead languages or highly technical writing, so AI might have a big impact on that field. It seems like it can also decipher cursive/old handwriting.
Nonetheless, it's interesting that despite huge increases in computing power, AI has failed to make a single major discovery. If you imagine a smart human being who had read every medical article and book in existence, you'd assume he would be thinking of new cures, antivenoms, and so on. To my knowledge, AI hasn't done anything even close to this in any field, which shows that it lacks something uniquely human -- maybe creativity or the ability to truly develop new information. It's best to understand generative AI, I think, as "image splicers" or "text splicers." These algorithms don't actually "draw" or "write," they just splice images or words together based on patterns, so it makes sense that it wouldn't make discoveries any more than a really powerful calculator could make discoveries. To quote Edward Feser, "a simulation of X is not the same as X, and. . . we should be especially aware of this when we are ourselves the makers of the simulation."
Nonetheless, it's interesting that despite huge increases in computing power, AI has failed to make a single major discovery. If you imagine a smart human being who had read every medical article and book in existence, you'd assume he would be thinking of new cures, antivenoms, and so on. To my knowledge, AI hasn't done anything even close to this in any field, which shows that it lacks something uniquely human -- maybe creativity or the ability to truly develop new information. It's best to understand generative AI, I think, as "image splicers" or "text splicers." These algorithms don't actually "draw" or "write," they just splice images or words together based on patterns, so it makes sense that it wouldn't make discoveries any more than a really powerful calculator could make discoveries. To quote Edward Feser, "a simulation of X is not the same as X, and. . . we should be especially aware of this when we are ourselves the makers of the simulation."
as a maths phd student i hover between "ai is useless for research level maths and anyone saying otherwise is buying into hype or clueless" and "i am terrified ai is going to replace my job in the future". i guess (hope) the real answer is it will end up as a useful assistant like it has become for programming but i dont think anyone is sure.
as a maths phd student i hover between "ai is useless for research level maths and anyone saying otherwise is buying into hype or clueless" and "i am terrified ai is going to replace my job in the future". i guess (hope) the real answer is it will end up as a useful assistant like it has become for programming but i dont think anyone is sure.
my pet conspiracy theory is that the boom of LLMs is just a direct consequence to crypto hysteria of the mid 2010s that screeched to a halt during late covid when tech companies were just sitting on racks upon racks of now-useless graphics cards and desperately sought for a way to use them in any way possible. it's just another one of these obnoxious stemsphere fads as the global tech market slowly realizes they haven't actually produced anything truly profitable or new since at least the mid-to-late 00s social media boom so they jump to whatever "new tech" that looks like it might boost their stocks
my pet conspiracy theory is that the boom of LLMs is just a direct consequence to crypto hysteria of the mid 2010s that screeched to a halt during late covid when tech companies were just sitting on racks upon racks of now-useless graphics cards and desperately sought for a way to use them in any way possible. it's just another one of these obnoxious stemsphere fads as the global tech market slowly realizes they haven't actually produced anything truly profitable or new since at least the mid-to-late 00s social media boom so they jump to whatever "new tech" that looks like it might boost their stocks
industIt's a good thing that the hurdle of visualization has been knocked down for everyone, it's the product that matters more.
if anyone actually believes stuff like this, please just go to your local art museum. i had just visited the chicago art museum again recently, and i stood completely in actual AWE at the scale and detail of some of the finest paintings in human history. it was impossible to not be humbled by the ability to walk up to the painting and see the innate physicality to the paintings. it was impossible to not be absolutely intrigued and inspired by some of the stories and circumstances that caused these paintings to be. art (in all its forms, not just visual) is so much more than the end result, it's something that humans innately have craved to do from the back of their psyche since before the discovery of fire. commodifying that and turning it into an automated process is anti-human
[quote=indust]It's a good thing that the hurdle of visualization has been knocked down for everyone, it's the product that matters more.[/quote]
if anyone actually believes stuff like this, please just go to your local art museum. i had just visited the chicago art museum again recently, and i stood completely in actual AWE at the scale and detail of some of the finest paintings in human history. it was impossible to not be humbled by the ability to walk up to the painting and see the innate physicality to the paintings. it was impossible to not be absolutely intrigued and inspired by some of the stories and circumstances that caused these paintings to be. art (in all its forms, not just visual) is so much more than the end result, it's something that humans innately have craved to do from the back of their psyche since before the discovery of fire. commodifying that and turning it into an automated process is anti-human
if anyone actually believes stuff like this, please just go to your local art museum. i had just visited the chicago art museum again recently, and i stood completely in actual AWE at the scale and detail of some of the finest paintings in human history. it was impossible to not be humbled by the ability to walk up to the painting and see the innate physicality to the paintings. it was impossible to not be absolutely intrigued and inspired by some of the stories and circumstances that caused these paintings to be. art (in all its forms, not just visual) is so much more than the end result, it's something that humans innately have craved to do from the back of their psyche since before the discovery of fire. commodifying that and turning it into an automated process is anti-human
springrollszxpAI makes data science so much easier and more accessible. It's what google/stackexchange was on steroids, and I think education as a whole needs to be rethunk. It's capable at carrying you through an entire undergraduate in any math heavy field (possibly also others, but I can't tell).
Missed this post somehow, but disagree here, at least for the statistics half/portion of data science. There's so much shit statistics advice out there that it's trained on, and I see this a lot as a TA, but if you don't already have a good understanding of the subject it's very easy for the AI to gaslight you into thinking something is true when it's not.
Here's an example:
https://i.imgur.com/kzVOZP4.png
This probably seems reasonable at first glance but this is just incorrect.
That being said models will always improve (wouldn't be surprised if the better AI's can get this right) but when you're first learning things it can be pretty misleading.
I agree that there is a lot of poor input data, however this is not really a counter-argument. Instead of getting a 10/10 score with AI you will get an 8/10 maybe. In fact, our faculty recently tested the performance of AI on a few of our exams, and the grade hovered around 9.0 (out of a 0-10 grading scale). At worst you can compare it to incorrect information you read in an article, stackexchange, lecture notes, or a book - if you don't understand the reasoning you would fail in all these cases as well.
The only topics it completely fails on in my experience are specialized topics which typically appear in your graduate courses and your PhD research.
wiitabix69420as a maths phd student i hover between "ai is useless for research level maths and anyone saying otherwise is buying into hype or clueless" and "i am terrified ai is going to replace my job in the future". i guess (hope) the real answer is it will end up as a useful assistant like it has become for programming but i dont think anyone is sure.
The real answer so far seems to lean toward the latter as far as I see. Springrolls makes a good argument above, that the end-user should still be capable of interpreting and understanding the outcome.
To me, this is no different from how data science has been in recent years. Writing bespoke code/analyses is quite easy with the resources available (even before LLMs), but interpreting these results correctly requires someone that is well-versed in statistics and the underlying (business) processes which generate the data. It only makes the end-user more efficient.
[quote=springrolls][quote=zxp]AI makes data science so much easier and more accessible. It's what google/stackexchange was on steroids, and I think education as a whole needs to be rethunk. It's capable at carrying you through an entire undergraduate in any math heavy field (possibly also others, but I can't tell).[/quote]
Missed this post somehow, but disagree here, at least for the statistics half/portion of data science. There's so much shit statistics advice out there that it's trained on, and I see this a lot as a TA, but if you don't already have a good understanding of the subject it's very easy for the AI to gaslight you into thinking something is true when it's not.
Here's an example:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/kzVOZP4.png[/img]
This probably seems reasonable at first glance but this is just incorrect.
That being said models will always improve (wouldn't be surprised if the better AI's can get this right) but when you're first learning things it can be pretty misleading.[/quote]
I agree that there is a lot of poor input data, however this is not really a counter-argument. Instead of getting a 10/10 score with AI you will get an 8/10 maybe. In fact, our faculty recently tested the performance of AI on a few of our exams, and the grade hovered around 9.0 (out of a 0-10 grading scale). At worst you can compare it to incorrect information you read in an article, stackexchange, lecture notes, or a book - if you don't understand the reasoning you would fail in all these cases as well.
The only topics it completely fails on in my experience are specialized topics which typically appear in your graduate courses and your PhD research.
[quote=wiitabix69420]as a maths phd student i hover between "ai is useless for research level maths and anyone saying otherwise is buying into hype or clueless" and "i am terrified ai is going to replace my job in the future". i guess (hope) the real answer is it will end up as a useful assistant like it has become for programming but i dont think anyone is sure.[/quote]
The real answer so far seems to lean toward the latter as far as I see. Springrolls makes a good argument above, that the end-user should still be capable of interpreting and understanding the outcome.
To me, this is no different from how data science has been in recent years. Writing bespoke code/analyses is quite easy with the resources available (even before LLMs), but interpreting these results correctly requires someone that is well-versed in statistics and the underlying (business) processes which generate the data. It only makes the end-user more efficient.
Missed this post somehow, but disagree here, at least for the statistics half/portion of data science. There's so much shit statistics advice out there that it's trained on, and I see this a lot as a TA, but if you don't already have a good understanding of the subject it's very easy for the AI to gaslight you into thinking something is true when it's not.
Here's an example:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/kzVOZP4.png[/img]
This probably seems reasonable at first glance but this is just incorrect.
That being said models will always improve (wouldn't be surprised if the better AI's can get this right) but when you're first learning things it can be pretty misleading.[/quote]
I agree that there is a lot of poor input data, however this is not really a counter-argument. Instead of getting a 10/10 score with AI you will get an 8/10 maybe. In fact, our faculty recently tested the performance of AI on a few of our exams, and the grade hovered around 9.0 (out of a 0-10 grading scale). At worst you can compare it to incorrect information you read in an article, stackexchange, lecture notes, or a book - if you don't understand the reasoning you would fail in all these cases as well.
The only topics it completely fails on in my experience are specialized topics which typically appear in your graduate courses and your PhD research.
[quote=wiitabix69420]as a maths phd student i hover between "ai is useless for research level maths and anyone saying otherwise is buying into hype or clueless" and "i am terrified ai is going to replace my job in the future". i guess (hope) the real answer is it will end up as a useful assistant like it has become for programming but i dont think anyone is sure.[/quote]
The real answer so far seems to lean toward the latter as far as I see. Springrolls makes a good argument above, that the end-user should still be capable of interpreting and understanding the outcome.
To me, this is no different from how data science has been in recent years. Writing bespoke code/analyses is quite easy with the resources available (even before LLMs), but interpreting these results correctly requires someone that is well-versed in statistics and the underlying (business) processes which generate the data. It only makes the end-user more efficient.
industIt doesn't take anything away from handmade art, just a couple jobs
sorry to just pick apart all the shit u said but i think saying something like this in particular is incredibly ignorant.
ive been in the online art scene for more than a decade at this point, and ai art has definitely damaged the perception of authenticity in a lot of actual artists, which invites way more negative engagement than positive. maybe that's not a big issue in the grand scheme of things but when will it? when it takes away more than "just a couple jobs"? get real
[quote=indust]It doesn't take anything away from handmade art, just a couple jobs[/quote]sorry to just pick apart all the shit u said but i think saying something like this in particular is incredibly ignorant.
ive been in the online art scene for more than a decade at this point, and ai art has definitely damaged the perception of authenticity in a lot of actual artists, which invites way more negative engagement than positive. maybe that's not a big issue in the grand scheme of things but when will it? when it takes away more than "just a couple jobs"? get real
ive been in the online art scene for more than a decade at this point, and ai art has definitely damaged the perception of authenticity in a lot of actual artists, which invites way more negative engagement than positive. maybe that's not a big issue in the grand scheme of things but when will it? when it takes away more than "just a couple jobs"? get real
https://www.404media.co/microsoft-study-finds-ai-makes-human-cognition-atrophied-and-unprepared-3/
i will not be using The Computer That Makes You Stupid
https://www.404media.co/microsoft-study-finds-ai-makes-human-cognition-atrophied-and-unprepared-3/
i will not be using The Computer That Makes You Stupid
i will not be using The Computer That Makes You Stupid
i dunno anything, but apple's new ai that summarizes texts turned a text from my wonderful 80 year great aunt that had the line "I hope your shoulder is healing!" into ""prepare your shoulder for tomorrow" which threw me for a loop
i dunno anything, but apple's new ai that summarizes texts turned a text from my wonderful 80 year great aunt that had the line "I hope your shoulder is healing!" into "[i]"prepare your shoulder for tomorrow"[/i] which threw me for a loop
fascist convert thinks art = objects that look good more at 11
fascist convert thinks art = objects that look good more at 11
It’s helping me through my first year of college so I fuck w ai, just pray that none of you guys dont end up being treated by me cause i dont know what im doing
It’s helping me through my first year of college so I fuck w ai, just pray that none of you guys dont end up being treated by me cause i dont know what im doing
Generative AI for shit like videos and text is complete junk technology designed to swindle idiot investors, but the general advancements in AI tech will probably have a net positive effect on human society (provided people are involved in the process and shutting down the stupid ideas of techbros). There's plenty of repetitive tasks that could be automated using AI technology without requiring mass layoffs of human workers.
Generative AI for shit like videos and text is complete junk technology designed to swindle idiot investors, but the general advancements in AI tech will probably have a net positive effect on human society (provided people are involved in the process and shutting down the stupid ideas of techbros). There's plenty of repetitive tasks that could be automated using AI technology without requiring mass layoffs of human workers.
Richarrrrdmy pet conspiracy theory is that the boom of LLMs is just a direct consequence to crypto hysteria of the mid 2010s that screeched to a halt during late covid when tech companies were just sitting on racks upon racks of now-useless graphics cards and desperately sought for a way to use them in any way possible. it's just another one of these obnoxious stemsphere fads as the global tech market slowly realizes they haven't actually produced anything truly profitable or new since at least the mid-to-late 00s social media boom so they jump to whatever "new tech" that looks like it might boost their stocks
U shouldn't debase what you wrote by calling it a conspiracy theory, that is 100% the reality of the situation
[quote=Richarrrrd]my pet conspiracy theory is that the boom of LLMs is just a direct consequence to crypto hysteria of the mid 2010s that screeched to a halt during late covid when tech companies were just sitting on racks upon racks of now-useless graphics cards and desperately sought for a way to use them in any way possible. it's just another one of these obnoxious stemsphere fads as the global tech market slowly realizes they haven't actually produced anything truly profitable or new since at least the mid-to-late 00s social media boom so they jump to whatever "new tech" that looks like it might boost their stocks[/quote]
U shouldn't debase what you wrote by calling it a conspiracy theory, that is 100% the reality of the situation
U shouldn't debase what you wrote by calling it a conspiracy theory, that is 100% the reality of the situation
Besides legitimate uses like science, programming or some other minor tasks, it shouldn't be as widespread as it is. Not in art, not in writing books, not in other aspects of human life. It applies to almost everything needing Internet access nowadays as well. Dead Internet Theory is already true, we don't need Dead Real Life Theory. We already have phones, so fridges, lamps or door locks don't need wifi and AI to be functional. Pushing it into everything will have negative impact on society faster than people think.
I can't wait for its fall, just like cryptos, NFTs, and other fads of tech companies. To Uncle Ted we pray.
Besides legitimate uses like science, programming or some other minor tasks, it shouldn't be as widespread as it is. Not in art, not in writing books, not in other aspects of human life. It applies to almost everything needing Internet access nowadays as well. Dead Internet Theory is already true, we don't need Dead Real Life Theory. We already have phones, so fridges, lamps or door locks don't need wifi and AI to be functional. Pushing it into everything will have negative impact on society faster than people think.
I can't wait for its fall, just like cryptos, NFTs, and other fads of tech companies. To Uncle Ted we pray.
I can't wait for its fall, just like cryptos, NFTs, and other fads of tech companies. To Uncle Ted we pray.
Overhyped rn, is just algorithms. People worry about sentience yet its years away from it. However, it does have some very good use cases. For example, medical field. However, AI can be lackluster and not always accurate so its a tool of many not something that should be relied upon (at least rn).
AI is simply, you have the inputs and you have the results. You tell the AI to make an algorithm that gets the results from the inputs at its simplest form of course you combine this many times and you can create some very cool programs, but not the end of the world just QOL updates.
- Computer science student (year 3) having made AI in the past opinion
Overhyped rn, is just algorithms. People worry about sentience yet its years away from it. However, it does have some very good use cases. For example, medical field. However, AI can be lackluster and not always accurate so its a tool of many not something that should be relied upon (at least rn).
AI is simply, you have the inputs and you have the results. You tell the AI to make an algorithm that gets the results from the inputs at its simplest form of course you combine this many times and you can create some very cool programs, but not the end of the world just QOL updates.
- Computer science student (year 3) having made AI in the past opinion
AI is simply, you have the inputs and you have the results. You tell the AI to make an algorithm that gets the results from the inputs at its simplest form of course you combine this many times and you can create some very cool programs, but not the end of the world just QOL updates.
- Computer science student (year 3) having made AI in the past opinion
drinksterIt’s helping me through my first year of college so I fuck w ai, just pray that none of you guys dont end up being treated by me cause i dont know what im doing
this is crazy
[quote=drinkster]It’s helping me through my first year of college so I fuck w ai, just pray that none of you guys dont end up being treated by me cause i dont know what im doing[/quote]
this is crazy
this is crazy
drinksterIt’s helping me through my first year of college so I fuck w ai, just pray that none of you guys dont end up being treated by me cause i dont know what im doing
me when i go to a place of learning i pay for to not learn
[quote=drinkster]It’s helping me through my first year of college so I fuck w ai, just pray that none of you guys dont end up being treated by me cause i dont know what im doing[/quote]
me when i go to a place of learning i pay for to not learn
me when i go to a place of learning i pay for to not learn
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.