Would it? I run a science fiction book club and there’re a lot of arguments that if something achieved human level intelligence that it would immediately try to kill us, not become our perfect servants
I’d completely forgotten about this show. But your comment made me start a rewatch 3 days ago, and man, it’s better than I remembered. Really has me hooked, and I just started season 2 now. Thanks!
Yea it has made shit up sometimes. But you can use your brain and check the sources … ? ChatGPT is just a more precise Google. You still have to check it yourself and use your head.
I watched the video, and he literally says that AI can be used as a more effective Google search. So clearly you didn’t watch the video, or pay attention at all. The video is also just a giant ad for their merch.
I think it is useful with a constrained dataset. Like using it to summarize things about a dataset, or dumping documents into it and asked getting info about it (like Gemini in Google Drive).
It is not useful for general question using the whole-ass internet as a dataset.
Also I wish it was called something other than AI…it’s just a word guesser FFS.
the only useful thing my company and collegues have fold for it is taking meeting notes. it just logs everything and summarizies stuff, and it’s like 90% accurate, but it does make plenty of errors.
however, if i give a presentation with screen sharing, it can’t do shit to summarize that.
We should are least refer to inference LLMs as LLMs. The fact that if you asked it something like who is the current CS2 top team, it would give you the top team at the time it was trained is enough proof that the models effectively know nothing.
I have a more nuanced take. AI is simultaneously untrustworthy and useful. For many queries, DuckDuckGo and Google are performing considerably worse than they used to, while Perplexity usually yields good results. Perplexity also handles complex queries traditional search engines just can’t.
About a third of the time, Perplexity’s text summary of what it found is inaccurate; it may even say the opposite of what a source does. Reading the sources and evaluating their reliability is no less important than with traditional search, but much of the time I think I wouldn’t have found the same sources that way.
Of course there are other issues with AI, such as power usage and Perplexity in particular being known for aggressive web scraping.
Nuance and depth isn’t as popular as I’d like on or off Lemmy.
Absolutely. I recently needed to satisfy auditors with a report on our network security. Our main guy was on leave, but I quickly got the evidence I needed with a few powershell commands that I would have previously spent way more time googling.
It’s also decent at reports and short, impersonal emails to suppliers etc. It frees up a lot of my time to do actual work, and for that I think it’s decent.
Like basically everything in life, the truth is between the extremes. For me it’s useful, but doesn’t replace me and my team. I’m neither an AI evangelist or detractor. It’s just another tool.
Ah, but you see, I never claimed AI isn’t useful. In fact, you can check my comment history. I’ve agreed AI is a very useful tool, I still think it shouldn’t be used for ethical, social, and personal reasons
A problem with nuance is that people want to discuss the specifics and nuances of what they care about but for the most part won’t do that on subjects for other people. So you need to tailor your responses to your audience. FWIW on Lemmy I see a lot more instances of people with specificly opposed takes where both sides have similar vote counts. So while it’s not perfect it’s better than most
You can theoretically have an ethical LLM. You can train one from the ground up on non-copyrighted materials using renewable energy.
But I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that it’s not uncommon for technology to start off super inefficient. A computer used to take up an entire floor of an office building, and a hard drive with a few KB of storage used to be the size of a fridge.
Now you can have a system orders of magnitude more powerful that’s the size of a postage stamp and consumes less than 1W of power.
Lots of things theoretically exist: a reasonable terms and conditions, a functioning DMV, a unified charging standard, etc. I’m going to focus my energy on things that are real and not hope someone decides to be morally upstanding. If you’re arguing that the bullshit machine that spreads lies that actively harm people could become so ubiquitous that it fits in any electronic device if we just keep giving it money, then I’d say you’re making my argument for me
I think ddg and Google are performing worse because of AI. Pushing their AI services and the tsunami of AI slop make a search harder than SEO did and deprioritizes fixing it.
i actively zone out when anyone higher up than me talks about copilot or chat gpt. i also dressed down a colleague for using chat gpt for a stupid simple task.
As a software developer I fully agree. People bash on it constantly here but the fact is is that it’s required for our jobs now. I just made it through a job hunt and every tech screen I did they not only insisted on me using AI, but they figured how much I was using too.
The fact is is that like it or not it does speed us up, and it is a tool in our toolbelt. You don’t have to trust it 100% or blindly accept what it does, but you do need to be able to use it. Refusing to use it is like refusing to use the designer for WinForms 20 years ago, or refusing to use an IDE at work. You’re going to be at a massive disadvantage to your competing jobseekers who are more than happy to use AI.
That’s dumbshits using it to do their job for them and trusting the output blindly. If you’re using LLMs to get over the occasional hump they’re awesome time savers.
I review take home assignments and mostly we receive AI submissions. It’s easy to tell when they aren’t AI though because we get thoughtful comments about why one choice was made over another, and comments on the higher level view that only come from product context and experience. I don’t think one single fully ai-created submission has made it passed the code review part.
See it’s hard as an interviewer because for the first time ever I lost points at one place because I didn’t use AI at all, and they almost didn’t say yes to me. Their feedback quite literally was that it functioned well, but I could have got it done faster with AI.
Seems pointless to test you on anything that could be done by ai, otherwise why even hire someone, just have fewer devs using more ai right? I want to test people on whether they have experience to notice things and make decisions. Idk if they generate the busy work but that isn’t what I’m grading them on
AI is untrustworthy and shouldn’t be used
I have management talking about copilot usage rates and I hear people casually refer to “what ChatGPT told them” in conversation
Actual AGI would be trustworthy. The current “AI” is just a word salad blender program.
It could be argued that people are AGI. Are they always trustworthy?
Would it? I run a science fiction book club and there’re a lot of arguments that if something achieved human level intelligence that it would immediately try to kill us, not become our perfect servants
I believe in the Grand Plan, and I have faith in The Director. Begone, faction scum.
I’d completely forgotten about this show. But your comment made me start a rewatch 3 days ago, and man, it’s better than I remembered. Really has me hooked, and I just started season 2 now. Thanks!
That was a good show.
I have people telling me how to do my work because “That’s what ChatGPT suggested, and they’re always accurate”.
🤷
The other day on Reddit someone was saying they just fact checked something with ChatGPT.
You can ask ChatGPT to provide sources you know.
The sources are bullshit https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfN9wnPvU0
Yea it has made shit up sometimes. But you can use your brain and check the sources … ? ChatGPT is just a more precise Google. You still have to check it yourself and use your head.
So you didn’t watch the video then, got it. I guess you can ask ChatGPT to summarize the transcript for you 🙄
I watched the video, and he literally says that AI can be used as a more effective Google search. So clearly you didn’t watch the video, or pay attention at all. The video is also just a giant ad for their merch.
Yeah. If ur dummy.
I’ve found it very useful as a tool to gather references from talks that don’t cite claims…
It’s like a super search for context. I would never use a LLM to provide logic or reason, and sadly I think many people do.
I think it is useful with a constrained dataset. Like using it to summarize things about a dataset, or dumping documents into it and asked getting info about it (like Gemini in Google Drive).
It is not useful for general question using the whole-ass internet as a dataset.
Also I wish it was called something other than AI…it’s just a word guesser FFS.
the only useful thing my company and collegues have fold for it is taking meeting notes. it just logs everything and summarizies stuff, and it’s like 90% accurate, but it does make plenty of errors.
however, if i give a presentation with screen sharing, it can’t do shit to summarize that.
We should are least refer to inference LLMs as LLMs. The fact that if you asked it something like who is the current CS2 top team, it would give you the top team at the time it was trained is enough proof that the models effectively know nothing.
I have a more nuanced take. AI is simultaneously untrustworthy and useful. For many queries, DuckDuckGo and Google are performing considerably worse than they used to, while Perplexity usually yields good results. Perplexity also handles complex queries traditional search engines just can’t.
About a third of the time, Perplexity’s text summary of what it found is inaccurate; it may even say the opposite of what a source does. Reading the sources and evaluating their reliability is no less important than with traditional search, but much of the time I think I wouldn’t have found the same sources that way.
Of course there are other issues with AI, such as power usage and Perplexity in particular being known for aggressive web scraping.
Nuance and depth isn’t as popular as I’d like on or off Lemmy.
I’ve found it to be extremely useful for stuff like one-off powershell commands that I’ll use like 3x in my career.
Just today I was trying to find the command line switches for disk2vhd, and none of the top results, even the official page for the app, had them.
But Google’s AI had them and provided sources I could use to verify the information.
But people didn’t do that last part before AI, so I can see why it’s an issue.
Absolutely. I recently needed to satisfy auditors with a report on our network security. Our main guy was on leave, but I quickly got the evidence I needed with a few powershell commands that I would have previously spent way more time googling.
It’s also decent at reports and short, impersonal emails to suppliers etc. It frees up a lot of my time to do actual work, and for that I think it’s decent.
Like basically everything in life, the truth is between the extremes. For me it’s useful, but doesn’t replace me and my team. I’m neither an AI evangelist or detractor. It’s just another tool.
Ah, but you see, I never claimed AI isn’t useful. In fact, you can check my comment history. I’ve agreed AI is a very useful tool, I still think it shouldn’t be used for ethical, social, and personal reasons
A problem with nuance is that people want to discuss the specifics and nuances of what they care about but for the most part won’t do that on subjects for other people. So you need to tailor your responses to your audience. FWIW on Lemmy I see a lot more instances of people with specificly opposed takes where both sides have similar vote counts. So while it’s not perfect it’s better than most
You can theoretically have an ethical LLM. You can train one from the ground up on non-copyrighted materials using renewable energy.
But I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that it’s not uncommon for technology to start off super inefficient. A computer used to take up an entire floor of an office building, and a hard drive with a few KB of storage used to be the size of a fridge.
Now you can have a system orders of magnitude more powerful that’s the size of a postage stamp and consumes less than 1W of power.
Lots of things theoretically exist: a reasonable terms and conditions, a functioning DMV, a unified charging standard, etc. I’m going to focus my energy on things that are real and not hope someone decides to be morally upstanding. If you’re arguing that the bullshit machine that spreads lies that actively harm people could become so ubiquitous that it fits in any electronic device if we just keep giving it money, then I’d say you’re making my argument for me
I think ddg and Google are performing worse because of AI. Pushing their AI services and the tsunami of AI slop make a search harder than SEO did and deprioritizes fixing it.
Ddg is performing worse because Microsoft raised the price on Bing API calls.
i actively zone out when anyone higher up than me talks about copilot or chat gpt. i also dressed down a colleague for using chat gpt for a stupid simple task.
As a software developer I fully agree. People bash on it constantly here but the fact is is that it’s required for our jobs now. I just made it through a job hunt and every tech screen I did they not only insisted on me using AI, but they figured how much I was using too.
The fact is is that like it or not it does speed us up, and it is a tool in our toolbelt. You don’t have to trust it 100% or blindly accept what it does, but you do need to be able to use it. Refusing to use it is like refusing to use the designer for WinForms 20 years ago, or refusing to use an IDE at work. You’re going to be at a massive disadvantage to your competing jobseekers who are more than happy to use AI.
This is not a fact at all.
Fine it speeds me up.
The people in the study thought so too
That’s dumbshits using it to do their job for them and trusting the output blindly. If you’re using LLMs to get over the occasional hump they’re awesome time savers.
I’m guessing you don’t write code?
I review take home assignments and mostly we receive AI submissions. It’s easy to tell when they aren’t AI though because we get thoughtful comments about why one choice was made over another, and comments on the higher level view that only come from product context and experience. I don’t think one single fully ai-created submission has made it passed the code review part.
See it’s hard as an interviewer because for the first time ever I lost points at one place because I didn’t use AI at all, and they almost didn’t say yes to me. Their feedback quite literally was that it functioned well, but I could have got it done faster with AI.
Seems pointless to test you on anything that could be done by ai, otherwise why even hire someone, just have fewer devs using more ai right? I want to test people on whether they have experience to notice things and make decisions. Idk if they generate the busy work but that isn’t what I’m grading them on