105
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] deur@feddit.nl 26 points 10 months ago

I love how the question "should I use AI?" points directly to no.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It also ponys directly to Yes es?

[-] pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 10 months ago

Data privacy concerns, data privay concerns, data priacy coucerns, and data apiacy concext!

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 15 points 10 months ago

I require humarmip in cons cunt

[-] Corngood@lemmy.ml 24 points 10 months ago

"cons cunt" is just Aussie slang for Lisp Programmer.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago

You are a genius

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 5 points 10 months ago

the task is clearly repeisitive

[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Given that it's pointing straight to "no", should I interpret "AI" as "additional irony"?

...seriously, model-based generation is in its infancy. Currently it outputs mostly trash; you need to spend quite a bit of time to sort something useful out of it. If anyone here actually believes that it's smart, I have a bridge to sell you.

[-] huginn@feddit.it 1 points 10 months ago

LLMs will undoubtedly improve as we build more systems around them.

The question is will it ever be reliable enough to trust? You can't have a 99% reliable critical system.

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

But 99% accuracy is better than any human alive, so while maybe LLMs won’t be able to substitute critical systems, they might just replace all the people around those systems.

Like, we won’t want an AI as the failsafe for a nuclear plant. But we might prefer an AI as the the “person” in charge of this failsafe.

[-] huginn@feddit.it 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Current generations aren't even close to that rate, and it's unclear if it's economical or even possible to fix the deep structural issues of our current Gen LLMs.

My professional experience with LLMs is that they don't even approach 20% accuracy for a field as ridiculously structured as programming.

They're just helpful enough to not be a hindrance.

Not too mention plenty of humans are 99% accurate

[-] soulfirethewolf@lemdro.id 5 points 10 months ago

Does it creatitity?

[-] library_napper@monyet.cc 1 points 10 months ago
[-] library_napper@monyet.cc 1 points 10 months ago

If you've ever had an interaction with him, you'd know why

[-] cbarrick@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
105 points (90.7% liked)

Technology

34600 readers
470 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS