I’ve tried several types of artificial intelligence including Gemini, Microsoft co-pilot, chat GPT. A lot of the times I ask them questions and they get everything wrong. If artificial intelligence doesn’t work why are they trying to make us all use it?

  • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Investors are dumb. It’s a hot new tech that looks convincing (since LLMs are designed specifically to appear correct, not be correct), so anything with that buzzword gets a ton of money thrown at it. The same phenomenon has occurred with blockchain, big data, even the World Wide Web. After each bubble bursts, some residue remains that actually might have some value.

    • Kintarian@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I can see that. That guy over there has the new shiny toy. I want a new shiny toy. Give me a new shiny toy.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Generative AI has allowed us to do some things that we could not do before. A lot of people very foolishly took that to mean it would let us do everything we couldn’t do before.

  • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 months ago

    Robots don’t demand things like “fair wages” or “rights”. It’s way cheaper for a corporation to, for example, use a plagiarizing artificial unintelligence to make images for something, as opposed to commissioning a human artist who most likely will demand some amount of payment for their work.

    Also I think that it’s partially caused by people going “ooh, new thing!” without stopping to think about the consequences of this technology or if it is actually useful.

  • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    IIRC When ChatGPT was first announced I believe the hype was because it was the first real usable interface a layman could interact with using normal language and have an intelligible response from the software. Normally to talk with computers we use their language (programming) but this allowed plain language speakers to interact and get it to do things with simple language in a more pervasive way than something like Siri for instance.

    This then got over hyped and over promised to people with dollars in their eyes at the thought of large savings from labor reduction and capabilities far greater than it had. They were sold a product that has no real “product” as it’s something most people would prefer to interact with on their own terms when needed, like any tool. That’s really hard to sell and make people believe they need it. So they doubled down with the promise it would be so much better down the road. And, having spent an ungodly amount into it already, they have that sunken cost fallacy and keep doubling down.

    This is my personal take and understanding of what’s happening. Though there’s probably more nuances, like staying ahead of the competition that also fell for the same promises.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Disclaimer: I’m going to ignore all moral questions here

    Because it represents a potentially large leap in the types of problems we can solve with computers. Previously the only comparable tool we had to solve problems were algorithms, which are fast, well-defined, and repeatable, but cannot deal with arbitrary or fuzzy inputs in a meaningful way. AI excels at dealing with fuzzy inputs (including natural language, which was a huge barrier previously), at the expense of speed and reliability. It’s basically an entire missing half to our toolkit.

    Be careful not to conflate AI in general with LLMs. AI is usually implemented as Machine Learning, which is a method of fitting an output to training data. LLMs are a specific instance of this that are trained on language (hence, large language models). I suspect that if AI becomes more widely adopted, most users will be interacting with LLMs like you are now, but most of the business benefit would come from classifiers that have a more restricted input/output space. As an example, you could use ML to train an AI that can be used to detect potentially suspicious bank transactions. The more data you have to sort through, the better AI can learn from it*, so I suspect the companies that have been collecting terabytes of data will start using AI to try to analyze it. I’m curious if that will be effective.

    *technically it depends a lot on the training parameters

    • Kintarian@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I suppose it depends on the data you’re using it for. I can see a computer looking through stacks data in no time.

  • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I genuinely think the best practical use of AI, especially language models is malicious manipulation. Propaganda/advertising bots. There’s a joke that reddit is mostly bots. I know there’s some countermeasures to sniff them out but think about it.

    I’ll keep reddit as the example because I know it best. Comments are simple puns, one liner jokes, or flawed/edgy opinions. But people also go to reddit for advice/recommendations that you can’t really get elsewhere.

    Using an LLM AI I could in theory make tons of convincing recommendations. I get payed by a corporation or state entity to convince lurkers to choose brand A over brand B, to support or disown a political stance or to make it seem like tons of people support it when really few do.

    And if it’s factually incorrect so what? It was just some kind stranger™ on the internet

    • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      If by “best practical” you meant “best unmitigated capitalist profit optimization” or “most common”, then sure, “malicious manipulation” is the answer. That’s what literally everything else is designed for.

  • lemmylommy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    You have asked why there is so much hype around artifical intelligence.

    There are a few reasons this might be the case:

    1. Because humans are curious. Experimenting with how humans believe memory and intelligence work might just lead them to find out something about their own intelligence.

    2. Because humans are stupid. Most do not have the slightest idea what „AI“ is this time, yet they are willing to believe in the most outlandish claims about it. Look up ELIZA. It fooled a lot of people, just like LLMs today.

    3. Because humans are greedy. And the prospect of replacing a lot of wage-earners, and not just manual laborers this time, with a machine is just too good to pass up for management. The potential savings are huge, if it works, so the willingness to spend money is also considerable.

    In conclusion, there are many reasons for the hype around artificial intelligence and most of them relate to human deficiencies and human nature in general.

    If you have further questions I am happy to help. Enjoy your experience with AI. While you still can. 🤖

  • kitnaht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Holy BALLS are you getting a lot of garbage answers here.

    Have you seen all the other things that generative AI can do? From bone-rigging 3D models, to animations recreated from a simple video, recreations of voices, art created from people without the talent for it. Many times these generative AIs are very quick at creating boilerplate that only needs some basic tweaks to make it correct. This speeds up production work 100 fold in a lot of cases.

    Plenty of simple answers are correct, breaking entrenched monopolies like Google from search, I’ve even had these GPTs take input text and summarize it quickly - at different granularity for quick skimming. There’s a lot of things that can be worthwhile out of these AIs. They can speed up workflows significantly.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, I feel like people who have very strong opinions about what AI should be used for also tend to ignore the facts of what it can actually do. It’s possible for something to be both potentially destructive and used to excess for profit, and also an incredible technical achievement that could transform many aspects of our life. Don’t ignore facts about something just because you dislike it.

    • Kintarian@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m a simple man. I just want to look up a quick bit of information. I ask the AI where I can find a setting in an app. It gives me the wrong information and the wrong links. That’s great that you can do all that, but for the average person, it’s kind of useless. At least it’s useless to me.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        You aren’t really using it for its intended purpose. It’s supposed to be used to synthesize general information. It only knows what people talk about; if the subject is particularly specific, like the settings in one app, it will not give you useful answers.

      • kitnaht@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        So you got the wrong information about an app once. When a GPT is scoring higher than 97% of human test takers on the SAT and other standardized testing - what does that tell you about average human intelligence?

        The thing about GPTs is that they are just word predictors. Lots of time when asked super specific questions about small subjects that people aren’t talking about - yeah - they’ll hallucinate. But they’re really good at condensing, categorizing, and regurgitating a wide range of topics quickly; which is amazing for most people.

        • Kintarian@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s not once. It has become such an annoyance that I quit using and asked what the big deal is. I’m sure for creative and computer nerd stuff it’s great, but for regular people sitting at home listening to how awesome AI is and being underwhelmed it’s not great. They keep shoving it down our throats and plain old people are bailing.

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            tl;dr: It’s useful, but not necessarily for what businesses are trying to convince you it’s useful for

          • kitnaht@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yeah, see that’s the kicker. Calling this “computer nerd stuff” just gives away your real thinking on the matter. My high school daughters use this to finish their essay work quickly, and they don’t really know jack about computers.

            You’re right that old people are bailing - they tend to. They’re ignorant, they don’t like to learn new and better ways of doing things, they’ve raped our economy and expect everything to be done for them. People who embrace this stuff will simply run circles around those who don’t. That’s fine. Luddites exist in every society.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    A dumb person thinks AI is really smart, because they just listen to anyone that answers confidentially

    And no matter what, AI is going to give its answer like it’s is 100% definitely the truth.

    That’s why there’s such a large crossover with AI and crypto, the same people fall for everything.

    There’s new supporting evidence for Penrose’s theory that natural intelligence involves just an absolute shit ton of quantum interactions, because we just found out how the body can create an environment where quantom super position can not only be achieved, but incredibly simply.

    AI got a boost because we didn’t really (still dont) understand consciousness. Tech bro’s convinced investors that neurons were what mattered, and made predictions for when that amount of neurons can be simulated.

    But if it include billions of molecules in quantum superposition, we’re not getting there in our lifetimes. But there’s a lot of money sunk in to it already, so there’s a lot of money to lose if people suddenly get realistic about what it takes to make a real artificial intelligence.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        The microtubules creating an environment that can sustain quantum super position just came out like a month ago.

        In all honesty the tech bros probably don’t even know yet, or understands it means human level AI speculation has essentially been disproven as happening anytime remotely soon.

        But I’m assuming when they do, they’ll just ignore it and double down to maintain share prices.

        It’s also possible it all crashes and billions of dollars disappear.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Microtubules have been pushed for decades without any proof. The latest paper wasn’t evidence but unsupported speculation.

          But more importantly the physics of computation that creates intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with understanding intelligence. Even if quantum effects are relevant ( which is extremely unlikely given the warm and moving environment inside the brain), it doesn’t answer anything about how humans are intelligent.

          Penrose used Quantum Mechanics as a “God in the Gaps” explanation. That worked 40 years ago but today we have working quantum computers but no human intelligence.

  • Tyrangle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is like saying that automobiles are overhyped because they can’t drive themselves. When I code up a new algorithm at work, I’m spending an hour or two whiteboarding my ideas, then the rest of the day coding it up. AI can’t design the algorithm for me, but if I can describe it in English, it can do the tedious work of writing the code. If you’re just using AI as a Google replacement, you’re missing the bigger picture.

      • Tyrangle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        A lot of people are doing work that can be automated in part by AI, and there’s a good chance that they’ll lose their jobs in the next few years if they can’t figure out how to incorporate it into their workflow. Some people are indeed out of the workforce or in industries that are safe from AI, but that doesn’t invalidate the hype for the rest of us.

  • Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago
    • automation by companies so they can "streamline"their workforces.

    • innovation by “teaching” it enough to solve bigger problems (cancer, climate, etc).

    • creating a sentient species that is the next evolution of life and watching it systematically eradicate every last human to save the planet.

  • Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I think there’s a lot of armchair simplification going on here. Easy to call investors dumb but it’s probably a bit more complex.

    AI might not get better than where it is now but if it does, it has the power to be a societally transformative tech which means there is a boatload of money to be made. (Consider early investors in Amazon, Microsoft, Apple and even the much derided Bitcoin.)

    Then consider that until incredibly recently, the Turing test was the yardstick for intelligence. We now have to move that goalpost after what was preciously unthinkable happened.

    And in the limited time with AI, we’ve seen scientific discoveries, terrifying advancements in war and more.

    Heck, even if AI gets better at code (not unreasonable, sets of problems with defined goals/outputs etc, even if it gets parts wrong shrinking a dev team of obscenely well paid engineers to maybe a handful of supervisory roles… Well, like Wu Tang said, Cash Rules Everything Around Me.

    Tl;dr: huge possibilities, even if there’s a small chance of an almost infinite payout, that’s a risk well worth taking.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’ll just toss in another answer nobody has mentioned yet:

    Terminator and Matrix movies were really, really popular. This sort of seeded the idea of it being a sort of inevitable future into the brains of the mainstream population.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Tech company management loves the idea of ridding themselves of programmers and other knowledge workers, and AI companies love selling the idea of non-productivity impacting layoffs to unsavvy companies (tech and otherwise).

    • Kintarian@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I try to do a search on Chrome and Gemini pops up and start spewing its BS. I go into messages and I try to send a message and gemini pops up and asks me if it wants to send a message for me. No I know how to write my own stupid messages. It’s all integrated into Windows 11, Is integrated into the Bing app. It’s like swatting flies trying to get rid of it.