^ This.
It’s a neat, under-construction tool.
A. Tool. An ‘agent’ to do things in nice.
…But I don’t need a chatbot on my fucking toaster.
^ This.
It’s a neat, under-construction tool.
A. Tool. An ‘agent’ to do things in nice.
…But I don’t need a chatbot on my fucking toaster.
min@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
Even as a tool it lacks predictability / reproducability. If I give instructions to download a paint program, start a new canvas of 1920x1080 and use the gradient tool to go from red to green, you’re going to get the same result every time. If I instead told a class of students to ask an AI to generate a red to green gradient on a 1920x1080 canvas, the results would not be consistent.
I use AI, but it is a tool with flaws.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If you use the same seed on the same model with the same weights you get the same results.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That’s not the predictability we want. If I write a calculator that adds the output of rand() to any result, it will also be repeatable with the same seed on the same machine. It will be nin-functional as a calculator though.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Depends on your use case. Adding 0.000001*rand() to a large number retains the functionality as a calculator.
Your argument that AI isn’t useful may be valid, but claiming that AI is not repeatable is false.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t really get the analogy… of course a bunch of students using different tools with different inputs will yield different results? But if they use the same model and input at zero temperature, they will, in fact, get the same results.
Predictability has never been a strength of ML, of course.
…That’s not really what it’s for. It’s for finding exotic stars in astronomical data, or interpoliating pixels in an image, for identifying cat videos reasonably well. That’s still a useful tool. And the modern extension of getting a glorified autocomplete to press some buttons automatically is no different if structured and constrained appropriately.
The obvious problem, among many I see, is that these Tech Bros are selling agening LLMs as sapient magic lamps, not niche tools for very specific bits of automation. Just look at the language Suleyman is using: