Ask Lemmy

Ah, but you see, I never claimed AI isn't useful. In fact, you can check my comment history. I've agreed AI is a very useful tool, I still think it shouldn't be used for ethical, social, and personal reasons

A problem with nuance is that people want to discuss the specifics and nuances of what they care about but for the most part won't do that on subjects for other people. So you need to tailor your responses to your audience. FWIW on Lemmy I see a lot more instances of people with specificly opposed takes where both sides have similar vote counts. So while it's not perfect it's better than most

I've found it to be extremely useful for stuff like one-off powershell commands that I'll use like 3x in my career.

Just today I was trying to find the command line switches for disk2vhd, and none of the top results, even the official page for the app, had them.

But Google's AI had them and provided sources I could use to verify the information.

But people didn't do that last part before AI, so I can see why it's an issue.

I think ddg and Google are performing worse because of AI. Pushing their AI services and the tsunami of AI slop make a search harder than SEO did and deprioritizes fixing it.

I think current state-of-the-art AI is useful for when you are not having a novel thought.

I believe that AI, at least in the form of LLMs, is currently incapable of novelty in the sense of creating a new concept or a new thought with reason and purpose behind it.

For instance, if I was going to write a book, I might consult with LLMs about how to fill in the slow gaps or the dead spaces in my storyline and to fully come up with a completely fleshed out story that I would then write without its assistance.

My assumption is that anything that it fills in is going to be cobbled together from literally hundreds of thousands of other similar stories, and therefore it will not be new or unique in any way.

If I was really trying to push the envelope, I would then assume that the right thing to do would be that whatever it says is ordinary and common, and if I want to be extraordinary and uncommon, then I need to use that as a launch point for my own gap-filling content.

Therefore, I could use an LLM to write a good story with a new concept, a new premise, a new storyline that is relatively unique and original by using the LLM to clearly identify those things that are not.

We should are least refer to inference LLMs as LLMs. The fact that if you asked it something like who is the current CS2 top team, it would give you the top team at the time it was trained is enough proof that the models effectively know nothing.

the only useful thing my company and collegues have fold for it is taking meeting notes. it just logs everything and summarizies stuff, and it's like 90% accurate, but it does make plenty of errors.

however, if i give a presentation with screen sharing, it can't do shit to summarize that.

Would it? I run a science fiction book club and there're a lot of arguments that if something achieved human level intelligence that it would immediately try to kill us, not become our perfect servants

It could be argued that people are AGI. Are they always trustworthy?

I review take home assignments and mostly we receive AI submissions. It's easy to tell when they aren't AI though because we get thoughtful comments about why one choice was made over another, and comments on the higher level view that only come from product context and experience. I don't think one single fully ai-created submission has made it passed the code review part.

The fact is is that like it or not it does speed us up

This is not a fact at all.