Fuck AI

I'm surprised that 16% hold on to the idea that it might be good...

don't put faith in an article that fails to show their source. that 16% could come with a 5-8% error rate meaning it's more like 8-11%, or worse the numbers are all made up. can't say because they failed to include a link to the study.

They don't care as long as the government bucks roll in

Everyone hates them yet almost everyone uses them

Back in the early days (and by that I mean years) of Facebook, as well as the ipod era of Apple, Americans (and most of the world really) were head over heels about those companies

I remember reading so many "articles" on how great the world would be if we just handed Jobs the keys to everything

It is by no means based on the aggregate of all human knowledge. It is based on the aggregate of all human knowledge that techbrodudes could easily rip off on the Internet.

There are enormous swaths of material that is not incorporated into them. There are likely entire LANGUAGES that are under-represented if not flatly absent from the training data. Approximately 50% to 70% or even beyond (depending on the specific analyses involved) of the training material pulled into LLMs, according to the Allen Institute, is in English. About 17% of the planet speaks English. "All human knowledge" indeed. There are approximately 7000 living languages on the planet. The best of the LLMs barely cover 50 of them to any degree of linguistic or cultural competence. (I know ChatGPT claims coverage of 80+ languages. I've also seen its unfortunate attempts at the outlying ones...)

And then there is a whole lot of knowledge and information in print form which is not yet incorporated. As a trivial example of this, the very important book in tea production and consumption circles, 中国茶经 (not to be confused with the ancient classic 茶经), is not available in any electronic form anywhere. Its encyclopedic coverage of the fractally complicated Chinese tea sphere is not in any LLM anywhere. Books of this calibre number in the thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, and are not in any LLM anywhere. This means that if you query an LLM about tea, you're going to get the amalgamated opinions of dumbasses on Reddit instead of authoritative sources like 中国茶经.

(And I'm not even going to start going down the epistemic rabbit warren of non-textual knowledge. Go ahead and ask your LLMbecile what it feels like when the clay is too wet on the wheel, or how to read a hostile room before negotiations. It will generate text ... but what is the source of the physicality and instinct? It has none. It regurgitates what some dumbass on Reddit said.)

It's a technological dead end. Neural Networks are much more promising in the long run