I mean, sure, in that the expectation is that the article is talking about AI in general. The cited paper is discussing LLMs and their ability to complete tasks. So, we have to agree that LLMs are what we mean by AI, and that their ability to complete tasks is a valid metric for AI. If we accept the marketing hype, then of course LLMs are exactly what we’ve been talking about with AI, and we’ve accepted LLMs features and limitations as what AI is. If LLMs are prone to filling in with whatever closest fits the model without regard to accuracy, by accepting LLMs as what we mean by AI, then AI fits to its model without regard to accuracy.
Comment on AI agents wrong ~70% of time: Carnegie Mellon study
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 6 days agoSo you’re saying the article’s measurements about AI agents being 70% of the time is made up?
chaonaut@lemmy.4d2.org 6 days ago
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Except you yourself just stated that it was impossible to measure performance of these things. When it’s favorable to AI, you claim it can’t be measured. When it’s unfavorable for AI, you claim of course it’s measurable. Your argument is so flimsy and your understanding so limited that you can’t even stick to a single idea. You’re all over the place.
chaonaut@lemmy.4d2.org 6 days ago
It questionable to measure these things as being reflective of AI, because what AI is changes based on what piece of tech is being hawked as AI, because we’re really bad at defining what intelligence is and isn’t. You want to claim LLMs as AI? Go ahead, but you also adopt the problems of LLMs as the problems of AIs. Defining AI and thus its metrics is a moving target. When we can’t agree to what is is, we can’t agree to what it can do.
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Again, you only say it’s a moving target to dispel anything favorable towards AI. Then you do a complete 180 when it’s negative reporting on AI. Makes your argument meaningless, if you can’t even stick to your own point.
Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
I would definitely bet it’s made up and poorly designed.
I wish that weren’t the case because having actual data would be nice, but these are almost always funded with some sort of intentional slant, for example nic vape safety where they clearly don’t use the product sanely and then make wild claims about how there’s lead in the vapes!
Homie you’re fucking running the shit completely dry for longer then any humans could possible actually hit the vape, no shit it’s producing carcinogens.
Go burn a bunch of paper and directly inhale the smoke and tell me paper is dangerous.
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Agreed. 70% is astoundingly high for today’s models. Something stinks.