The answer is “marketing”
They have pushed AI so hard in the last couple of years they have convinced many that we are 1 year away from Terminator travelling back in time to prevent the apocalypse
Comment on Rabbit R1 AI box revealed to just be an Android app
De_Narm@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Why are there AI boxes popping up everywhere? They are useless. How many times do we need to repeat that LLMs are trained to give convincing answers but not correct ones. I’ve gained nothing from asking this glorified e-waste something, pulling out my phone and verifying it.
exanime@lemmy.today 5 months ago
sudo42@lemmy.world 5 months ago
- Incredible levels of hype
- Tons of power consumption
- Questionable utility
- Small but very vocal fanbase
s/Crypto/AI/
blaine@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
I just used ChatGPT to write a 500-line Python application that syncs IP addresses from asset management tools to our vulnerability management stack. This took about 4 hours. The code passed QA and is moving into production next week.
Tell me again how LLMs are useless?
VeryVito@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
To be honest… that doesn’t sound like a heavy lift at all.
dimeslime@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Dream of tech bosses everywhere. Pay an intermediate dev for average level senior output.
Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 5 months ago
Intermediate? Nah, junior. They're cheaper after all.
But senior devs do a lot more than output code. Sometimes - like Bill Atkinson's famous -2000 line change to Quickdraw - involve a lot of complex logic and very little actual code output.
dimeslime@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
It’s a shortcut for experience, but you lose a lot of the tools you get with experience. If I were early in my career I’d be very hesitant relying on it as its a fragile ecosystem right now that might disappear, in the same way that you want to avoid tying your skills to a single companies product. In my workflow it slows me down because the answers I get are often average or wrong, it’s never “I’d never thought of doing it that way!” levels of amazing.
Bahnd@lemmy.world 5 months ago
You used the right tool for the job, saved you from hours of work. General AI is still a very long ways off and people expecting the current models to behave like one are foolish.
Are they useless? For writing code, no. Most other tasks yes, or worse as they will be confiently wrong about what you ask them.
Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 5 months ago
I think the reason they're useful for writing code is that there's a third party - the parser or compiler - that checks their work. I've used LLMs to write code as well, and it didn't always get me something that worked but I was easily able to catch the error.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Are they useless?
Only if you believe most Lemmy commenters. They are convinced you can only use them to write highly shitty and broken code and nothing else.
Bahnd@lemmy.world 5 months ago
This is my expirence with LLMs, I have gotten it to write me code that can at best be used as a scaffold. I personally do not find much use for them as you functionally have to proofread everything they do. All it does change the work load from a creative process to a review process.
best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
But we never have proofs that it gives good code, that’s convenient…
AIhasUse@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It’s no sense trying to explain to people like this. Their eyes glaze over when they hear Autogen, agents, Crew ai, RAG, Opus… To them, generative AI is nothing more than the free version of chatgpt from a year ago, they’ve not kept up with the advancements, so they argue from a point in the distant past. The future will be hitting them upside the head soon enough and they will be the ones complaining that nobody told them what was comming.
FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Thing is, if you want to sell the tech, it has to work, and what most people have seen by now is not really convincing (hence the copious amount of downvotes you’ve received).
You guys sound like fucking cryptobros, which will totally replace fiat currency next year. Trust me bro.
AIhasUse@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Downvotes by a few uneducated people mean nothing. The tools are already there. You are free to use them and think about this for yourself. I’m not even talking about what will be here in the future. There is some really great stuff right now. Even if doing some very simple setup is too daunting for you, you can just watch people on youtube doing it to see what is available. People in this thread have literally already told you what to type into your search box.
In the early 90s, people exactly like you would go on and on about how stupid the computerbros were for thinking anyone would ever use this new stupid “intertnet” thing. You do you, it is totally fine if you think because a handful of uneducated, vocal people on the internet agree with you that technology has mysteriously frozen for the first time in history, then you must all be right.
GluWu@lemm.ee 5 months ago
They aren’t trying to have a conversation, they’re trying to convince themselves that the things they don’t understand are bad and they’re making the right choice by not using it. They’ll be the boomers that needed millennials to send emails for them. Been through that so I just pretend I don’t understand AI. I feel bad for the zoomers and genas that will be running AI and futilely trying to explain how easy it is. Its been a solid 150 years of extremely rapid invention and innovation of disruptive technology. But THIS is the one that actually won’t be disruptive.
best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Please show me good code done with AI. I’m waiting.
FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
I’m not trying to convince myself of anything. I was very happy to try LLM tools for myself. They just proved to be completely useless. And there’s a limit to what I’m going to do to try out things that just don’t seem to work at all. Paying a ton of money to a company to use disproportionate amounts of energy for uncertain results is not one of them.
Some people have misplaced confidence with generated code because it gets them places they wouldn’t be able to reach without the crutches. But if you do things right and review the output of those tools (assuming it worked more often), then the value proposition is much less appealing… Reviewing code is very hard and mentally exhausting.
And look, we don’t all do CRUD apps or scripts all day.
AIhasUse@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Wonderfully said, this is a very good point.
FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
This is not really a slam dunk argument
First off, this is not the kind of code I write on my end, and I don’t think I’m the only one not writing scripts all day. There’s a need for scripts at times in my line of work but I spend more of my time thinking about data structures, domain modelling and code architecture, and I have to think about performance as well. Might explain my bad experience with LLMs in the past.
I have actually written similar scripts in comparable amounts of times (a day for a working proof of concept that could have gone to production as-is) without LLMs. My use case was to parse JSON crash reports from a provider (undisclosable due to NDAs) to serialize it to our my company’s binary format. A significant portion of that time was spent on deciding what I cared about and what JSON fields I should ignore. I could have used ChatGPT to find the command line flags for my Docker container but it didn’t exist back then, and Google helped me just fine.
Assuming you had to guide the LLM throughout the process, this is not something that sounds very appealing to me. I’d rather spend time improving on my programming skills than waste that time teaching the machine stuff, even for marginal improvements in terms of speed of delivery (assuming there would be some, which I just am not convinced is the case).
On another note…
There’s no need for snark, just detailing your experience with the tool serves your point better than antagonizing your audience. Your post is not enough to convince me this is useful (because the answers I’ve gotten from ChatGPT have been unhelpful 80% of the time), but it was enough to get me to look into AutoGen Studio which I didn’t know about!
sudo42@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Who’s going to tell them that “QA” just ran the code through the same AI model and it came back “Looks Good”.
:-)
best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
The code is bad and I would not approve this. I don’t know how you think it’s a good example for LLMs.
force@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The code looks like any other Python code out there.
best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
We’re doomed then because I would reject that in a MR for being unprofessional and full of bugs.
knotthatone@lemmy.one 5 months ago
I don’t think LLMs are useless, but I do think little SoC boxes running a single application that will vaguely improve your life with loosely defined AI features are useless.
XEAL@lemm.ee 5 months ago
It’s not black or white.
Of couse AI hallucinates, but not all that an LLM produces is garbage.
Don’t expect a “living” Wikipedia or Google, but, it sure can help with things like coding or translating.
De_Narm@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I don’t necessarily disagree. You can certainly use LLMs and achieve something in less time than without it. Numerous people here are speaking about coding and while I had no success with them, it can work with more popular languages. The thing is, these people use LLMs as a tool in their process. They verify the results (or the compiler does it for them). That’s not what this product is. It’s a standalone device which you talk to. It’s supposed to replace pulling out your phone to answer a question.
Paradox@lemdro.id 5 months ago
I quite like kagis universal summarizer, for example. It let’s me know if a long ass YouTube video is worth watching
Croquette@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
I use LLMs as a starting point to research new subjects.
The google/ddg search quality is hot garbage, so LLM at least gives me the terminology to be more precise in my searchs.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 months ago
Because money, both from tech hungry but not very savvy consumers, and the inevitable advertisers that will pay for the opportunity for their names to be ejected from these boxes as part of a perfectly natural conversation.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I think it’s a delayed development reaction to Amazon Alexa from 4 years ago. Alexa came out, voice assistants were everywhere. Someone wanted to cash in on the hype but consumer product development takes a really long time.
So product is finally finished (mobile Alexa) and they label it AI to hype it as well as make it work without the hard work of parsing wikipedia for good answers.
AIhasUse@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Alexa is a fundamentally different architecture from the LLMs of today. There is no way that anyone with even a basic understanding of modern computing would say something like this.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Alexa is a fundamentally different architecture from the LLMs of today.
Which is why I explicitly said they used AI (LLM) instead of the harder but more accurate Alexa method.
Maybe actually read the entire post before being an ass.
Paradox@lemdro.id 5 months ago
Alexa and Google home came out nearly a decade ago
MxM111@kbin.social 5 months ago
The best convincing answer is the correct one. The correlation of AI answers with correct answers is fairly high. Numerous test show that. The models also significantly improved (especially paid versions) since introduction just 2 years ago.
Of course it does not mean that it could be trusted as much as Wikipedia, but it is probably better source than Facebook.De_Narm@lemmy.world 5 months ago
“Fairly high” is still useless (and doesn’t actually quantify anything, depending on context both 1% and 99% could be ‘fairly high’). As long as these models just hallucinate things, I need to double-check. Which is what I would have done without one of these things anyway.
AIhasUse@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Hallucinations are largely dealt with if you use agents. It won’t be long until it gets packaged well enough that anyone can just use it. For now, it takes a little bit of effort to get a decent setup.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 months ago
1% correct is never “fairly high” wtf
Also if you want a computer that you don’t have to double check, you literally are expecting software to embody the concept of God. This is fucking stupid.
De_Narm@lemmy.world 5 months ago
1% correct is never “fairly high” wtf It’s all about context. Asking a bunch of 4 year olds about questions about trigonometry, 1% of answers being correct would be fairly high. ‘Fairly high’ basically only means ‘as high as expected’ or ‘higher than expected’.
Also if you want a computer that you don’t have to double check, you literally are expecting software to embody the concept of God. This is fucking stupid. Hence, it is useless. If I cannot expect it to be more or less always correct, I can skip using it and just look stuff up myself.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
An LLM has never generated a correct answer to any of my queries.
iAmTheTot@kbin.social 5 months ago
That seems unlikely, unless "any" means two.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Perhaps the problem is that I never bothered to ask anything trivial enough, but you’d think that two rhyming words starting with 'L" would be simple.
magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 5 months ago
I’ve asked GPT4 to write specific Python programs, and more often than not it does a good job. And if the program is incorrect I can tell it about the error and it will often manage to fix it for me.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I don’t believe you
FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
You have every right not to, but the “useless” word comes out a lot when talking about LLMs and code, and we’re not all arguing in bad faith. The reliability problem is still a strong factor in why people don’t use this more, and, even if you buy into the hype, it’s probably a good idea to temper your expectations and try to walk a mile in the other person’s shoes. You might get to use LLMs and learn a thing or two.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
OK
k_rol@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
I think Meta hates your answer
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I have now heard of my first “ai box”. I’m on Lemmy most days. Not sure how it’s an epidemic…
De_Narm@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I haven’t seen much of them here, but I use other media too. E.g, not long ago there was a lot of coverage about the “Humane AI Pin”, which was utter garbage and even more expensive.
OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I just started diving into the space from a localized point yesterday. And I can say that there are definitely problems with garbage spewing, but some of these models are getting really really good at really specific things.
A biomedical model I saw seemed lauded for it’s consistency in pulling relevant data from medical notes for the sake of patient care instructions, important risk factors, fall risk level etc.
So although I agree they’re still giving well phrased garbage for big general cases (and GPT4 seems to be much more ‘savvy’), the specific use cases are getting much better and I’m stoked to see how that continues.
BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 5 months ago
There is s fuck ton on money laundering coming from China and they invest millions in any tech-bro stupid idea to dump their illegal cash.
cron@feddit.de 5 months ago
What I don’t get is why anyone would like to buy a new gadget for some AI features. Just develop a nice app and let people run it on their phones.
ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That’s why though. Because they can monetize hardware. They can’t monetize something ChatGPT does, but in their own app.
knotthatone@lemmy.one 5 months ago
Plenty of free apps get monetized just fine. They just have to offer something people want to use that they can slather ads all over. The AI doo-dads haven’t shown they’re useful. I’m guessing the dedicated hardware strategy got them more upfront funding from stupid venture capital than an app would have, but they still haven’t answered why anybody should buy these. Just postponing the inevitable.