Comment on [deleted]

• btaf45@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It’s in the quote that they scaled it.

  Yes but they supposedly scaled it to “one meter per meter”. A “scale where the distance from the Sun to Earth is 150 million km” is the actual distance.

  source

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    lol I did miss that, but it was enough to make it not a guess that its source was scaling for comparison.

    My whole point was the same as your OP, though. A condom that’s 95% effective isn’t worth shit. You can’t let a toy without reading comprehension do your reading for you.

    source

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      But the thing is condoms ARE 98% effective, and yet people still use them.

      source
• FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Except it is capable of meaningfully doing so, just not in 100% of every conceivable situation. And those rare flubs are the ones that get spread around and laughed at, such as this example.

  There's a nice phrase I commonly use, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." These AIs are good enough at this point that I find them to be very useful. Not perfect, of course, but they don't have to be as long as you're prepared for those occasions, like this one, where they give a wrong result. Like any tool you have some responsibility to know how to use it and what its capabilities are.

  source

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    No, it isn’t.

    You’re allowing a simple tool with literally zero reading comprehension to do your reading for you. It’s not surprising your understanding of what the tech is is lacking.

    source
  • btaf45@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    AIs are definitely not “good enough” to give correct answers to science questions. I’ve seen lots of other incorrect answers before seeing this one. While it was easy to spot that this answer is incorrect, how many incorrect answers are not obvious?

    source
• WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  *Dangerous! Don’t forget how dangerous it is — considering all tech bros and corps are acting as though LLM’s are on the verge of real intelligence, instead of being a stochastic parrot that’s essentially a mathematical magic trick.

  Our “intelligence” agencies already kill innocent people based entirely on metadata — because they simply live or work around areas that known terrorists occupy — now imagine if an AI was calling the shots. The more LLM’s are integrated into our day to day lives, the more people will trust them and disregard their own logic, and the more dangerous they become.

  source

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Our "intelligence" agencies already kill innocent people based entirely on metadata — because they simply live or work around areas that known terrorists occupy — now imagine if an AI was calling the shots.

    So by your own scenario, intelligence agencies are already getting stuff wrong and making bad decisions using existing methodologies.

    Why do you assume that new methodologies that involve LLMs will be worse at that? Why could they not be better? Presumably they're going to be evaluating their results when deciding whether to make extensive use of them.

    "Mathematical magic tricks" can turn out to be extremely useful. That phrase can be used to describe all manner of existing techniques that are undeniably foundational to civilization.

    source
• ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Calling it useless is very dismissive and just not true at all.

  I wrote ArigatouAnimeTracker nearly entirely using ChatGPT including the description, nearly all 600 commits entirely from ChatGPT generated code. It is very far from useless and I feel much more comfortable with my dev job knowing I am willing to and able to leverage these newer technologies.

  source