Comment on AI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon study
jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 week agoI think everyone in the universe is aware of how LLMs work by now, you don’t need to explain it to someone just because they think LLMs are more useful than you do.
IDK what you mean by glazing but if by “glaze” you mean “understanding the potential threat of AI to society instead of hiding under a rock and pretending it’s as useless as a plastic radio,” then no, I won’t stop.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
It’s absolutely dangerous but it doesnt have to work even a little to do damage; hell, it already has. Your thing just makes it sound much more capable than it is. And it is not.
Also, it’s not AI.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
semantics.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
No, it matters. Youre pushing the lie they want pushed.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Hitler liked to paint, doesn’t make painting wrong. The fact that big tech is pushing AI isn’t evidence against the utility of AI.
That common parlance is to call machine learning “AI” these days doesn’t matter to me in the slightest. Do you have a definition of “intelligence”? Do you object when pathfinding is called AI? Or STRIPS? Or bots in a video game? Dare I say it, the main difference between those AIs and LLMs is their generality – so why not just call it GAI at this point tbh. This is a question of semantics so it really doesn’t matter to the deeper question. Doesn’t matter if you call it AI or not, LLMs work the same way either way.
Honytawk@feddit.nl 1 week ago
And your pushing a hate train you don’t understand.
Seems like you are even less than 30% useful. And that is mainly because you can be used as fertilizer.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
the industrial revolution could be seen as dangerous, yet it brought the highest standard of living increase in centuries