The only time I've seen AI work well are for things like game development, mainly the upscaling of textures and filling in missing frames of older games so they can run at higher frames without being choppy. Maybe even have applications for getting more voice acting done... If the SAG and Silicon Valley can find an arrangement for that that works out well for both parties..
If not for that I'd say 10% reality was being.... incredibly favorable to the tech bros
I use shell_gpt with OpenAI api key so that I don't have to pay a monthly fee for their web interface which is way too expensive. I topped up my account with 5$ back in March and I still haven't use it up. It is OK for getting info about very well established info where doing a web search would be more exhausting than asking chatgpt. But every time I try something more esoteric it will make up shit, like non existent options for CLI tools
I used chatGPT to help make looking up some syntax on a niche scripting language over the weekend to speed up the time I spent working so I could get back to the weekend.
Then, yesterday, I spent time talking to a colleague who was familiar with the language to find the real syntax because chatGPT just made shit up and doesn't seem to have been accurate about any of the details I asked about.
Though it did help me realize that this whole time when I thought I was frying things, I was often actually steaming them, so I guess it balances out a bit?
Like with any new technology. Remember the blockchain hype a few years back? Give it a few years and we will have a handful of areas where it makes sense and the rest of the hype will die off.
Everyone sane probably realizes this. No one knows for sure exactly where it will succeed so a lot of money and time is being spent on a 10% chance for a huge payout in case they guessed right.
Git is a sort of proto-blockchain -- well, it's a ledger anyway. It is fairly useful. (Fucking opaque compared to subversion or other centralized systems that didn't have the ledger, but I digress...)
It's crazy how much fud is flying around, and legitimately buries good open research. It's also crazy what these giant corporations are explicitly saying what they're going to do, and that anyone buys it. TSMC's allegedly calling Sam Altman a 'podcast bro' is spot on, and I'd add "manipulative vampire" to that.
Talk to any long-time resident of localllama and similar "local" AI communities who actually dig into this stuff, and you'll find immense skepticism, not the crypto-like AI bros like you find on linkedin, twitter and such and blot everything out.
For real. Being a software engineer with basic knowledge in ML, I'm just sick of companies from every industry being so desperate to cling onto the hype train they're willing to label anything with AI, even if it has little or nothing to do with it, just to boost their stock value. I would be so uncomfortable being an employee having to do this.
As someone who was working really hard trying to get my company to be able use some classical ML (with very limited amounts of data), with some knowledge on how AI works, and just generally want to do some cool math stuff at work, being asked incessantly to shove AI into any problem that our execs think are “good sells” and be pressured to think about how we can “use AI” was a terrible feel. They now think my work is insufficient and has been tightening the noose on my team.
TSMC are probably making more money than anyone in this goldrush by selling the shovels and picks, so if that's their opinion, I feel people should listen...
There's little in the AI business plan other than hurling money at it and hoping job losses ensue.
I think we should indict Sam Altman on two sets of charges:
A set of securities fraud charges.
8 billion counts of criminal reckless endangerment.
He's out on podcasts constantly saying the OpenAI is near superintelligent AGI and that there's a good chance that they won't be able to control it, and that human survival is at risk. How is gambling with human extinction not a massive act of planetary-scale criminal reckless endangerment?
So either he is putting the entire planet at risk, or he is lying through his teeth about how far along OpenAI is. If he's telling the truth, he's endangering us all. If he's lying, then he's committing securities fraud in an attempt to defraud shareholders. Either way, he should be in prison. I say we indict him for both simultaneously and let the courts sort it out.
I really want to like AI, I’d love to have an intelligent AI assistant or something, but I just struggle to find any uses for it outside of some really niche cases or for basic brainstorming tasks. Otherwise, it just feels like alot of work for very little benefit or results that I can’t even trust or use.
I keep Qwen 32B loaded on my desktop pretty much whenever its on, as an (unreliable) assistant to analyze or parse big texts, to do quick chores or write scripts, to bounce ideas off of or even as a offline replacement for google translate (though I specifically use aya 32B for that).
It does "feel" different when the LLM is local, as you can manipulate the prompt syntax so easily, hammer it with multiple requests that come back really fast when it seems to get something wrong, not worry about refusals or data leakage and such.
I receive alerts when people are outside my house, using security cameras, Blue Iris, CodeProject AI, Node-RED and Home Assistant, using a Google Coral for local AI. Entirely local - no cloud services apart from Google's notification system to get notifications to my phone while I'm not home (which most Android apps use). That's a good use case for AI since it avoids false positives that occur with regular motion detection.
The saddest part is, this is going to cause yet another AI winter. The first few ones were caused by genuine over-enthusiasm but this one is purely fuelled by greed.
The AI ecosystem is flooded, we need a good bubble pop to slow down the massive waste of resources that our current info-remix-based-on-what-you-will-likely-react-positively-to shit-tier AI represents.
After getting my head around the basics of the way LLMs work I thought "people rely on this for information?", the model seems ok for tasks like summarisation though
I don’t love it for summarization. If I read a summary, my takeaway may be inaccurate.
Brainstorming is incredible. And revision suggestions. And drafting tedious responses, reformatting, parsing.
In all cases, nothing gets attributed to me unless I read every word and am in a position to verify the output. And I internalize nothing directly, besides philosophy or something. Sure can be an amazing starting point especially compared to a blank page.
It's good for coding if you train it on your own code base. Not great for writing very complex code since the models tend to hallucinate, but it's great for common patterns, and straightforward questions specific to your code base that can be answered based on existing code (eg "how do I load a user's most recent order given their email address?")
When Mr. Altman visited TSMC’s headquarters in Taiwan shortly after he started his fund-raising effort, he told its executives that it would take $7 trillion and many years to build 36 semiconductor plants and additional data centers to fulfill his vision, two people briefed on the conversation said. It was his first visit to one of the multibillion-dollar plants.
TSMC’s executives found the idea so absurd that they took to calling Mr. Altman a “podcasting bro,” one of these people said. Adding just a few more chip-making plants, much less 36, was incredibly risky because of the money involved.
I know nothing about anything, but I unfoundedly believe we're still very far away from the computing power required for that. I think we still underestimate the power of biological brains.
AI is very useful in medical sectors, if coupled with human intervention. The very tedious works of radiologists to rule out normal imaging and its variants (which accounts for over 80% cases) can be automated with AI. Many of the common presenting symptoms can be well guided to diagnosis with some meticulous use of AI tools. Some BCI such as bioprosthosis can also be immensely benefitted with AI.
The key is its work must be monitored with clinicians. As much valuable the private information of patients is, blindly feeding everything to an AI can have disastrous consequences.
I recently saw a video of AI designing an engine, and then simulating all the toolpaths to be able to export the G code for a CNC machine. I don't know how much of what I saw is smoke and mirrors, but even if that is a stretch goal it is quite significant.
An entire engine? That sounds like a marketing plot. But if you take smaller chunks let's say the shape of a combustion chamber or the shape of a intake or exhaust manifold. It's going to take white noise and just start pattern matching and monkeys on typewriter style start churning out horrible pieces through a simulator until it finds something that tests out as a viable component. It has a pretty good chance of turning out individual pieces that are either cheaper or more efficient than what we've dreamed up.
and then simulating all the toolpaths to be able to export the G code for a CNC machine. I don’t know how much of what I saw is smoke and mirrors, but even if that is a stretch goal it is quite significant.
<sarcasm>
Damn, I ascended to become an AI and I didn't realise it.
</sarcasm>
A Market place, where people can generate their ideas of jewellery and order them after. Makes life of goldsmiths and customers way more easy. I do not think aI will leave this project, for example.
That's about right. I've been using LLMs to automate a lot of cruft work from my dev job daily, it's like having a knowledgeable intern who sometimes impresses you with their knowledge but need a lot of guidance.
In addition, there have been these studies released (not so sure how well established, so take this with a grain of salt) lately, indicating a correlation with increased perceived efficiency/productivity, but also a strongly linked decrease in actual efficiency/productivity, when using LLMs for dev work.
After some initial excitement, I’ve dialed back using them to zero, and my contributions have been on the increase. I think it just feels good to spitball, which translates to heightened sense of excitement while working. But it’s really just much faster and convenient to do the boring stuff with snippets and templates etc, if not as exciting. We’ve been doing pair programming lately with humans, and while that’s slower and less efficient too, seems to contribute towards rise in quality and less problems in code review later, while also providing the spitballing side. In a much better format, I think, too, though I guess that’s subjective.
I make DNNs (deep neural networks), the current trend in artificial intelligence modeling, for a living.
Much of my ancillary work consists of deflating/tempering the C-suite's hype and expectations of what "AI" solutions can solve or completely automate.
DNN algorithms can be powerful tools and muses in scientific endeavors, engineering, creativity and innovation. They aren't full replacements for the power of the human mind.
I can safely say that many, if not most, of my peers in DNN programming and data science are humble in our approach to developing these systems for deployment.
If anything, studying this field has given me an even more profound respect for the billions of years of evolution required to display the power and subtleties of intelligence as we narrowly understand it in an anthropological, neuro-scientific, and/or historical framework(s).
I don't know why. The people marketing it have absolutely no understanding of what they're selling.
Best part is that I get paid if it works as they expect it to and I get paid if I have to decommission or replace it. I'm not the one developing the AI that they're wasting money on, they just demanded I use it.
That's true software engineering folks. Decoupling doesn't just make it easier to program and reuse, it saves your job when you need to retire something later too.
The worrying part is the implications of what they're claiming to sell. They're selling an imagined future in which there exists a class of sapient beings with no legal rights that corporations can freely enslave. How far that is from the reality of the tech doesn't matter, it's absolutely horrifying that this is something the ruling class wants enough to invest billions of dollars just for the chance of fantasizing about it.
I had a professor in college that said when an AI problem is solved, it is no longer AI.
Computers do all sorts of things today that 30 years ago were the stuff of science fiction. Back then many of those things were considered to be in the realm of AI. Now they're just tools we use without thinking about them.
I'm sitting here using gesture typing on my phone to enter these words. The computer is analyzing my motions and predicting what words I want to type based on a statistical likelihood of what comes next from the group of possible words that my gesture could be. This would have been the realm of AI once, but now it's just the keyboard app on my phone.
The approach of LLMs without some sort of symbolic reasoning layer aren't actually able to hold a model of what their context is and their relationships. They predict the next token, but fall apart when you change the numbers in a problem or add some negation to the prompt.
Awesome for protein research, summarization, speech recognition, speech generation, deep fakes, spam creation, RAG document summary, brainstorming, content classification, etc. I don't even think we've found all the patterns they'd be great at predicting.
There are tons of great uses, but just throwing more data, memory, compute, and power at transformers is likely to hit a wall without new models. All the AGI hype is a bit overblown. That's not from me that's Noam Chomsky https://youtu.be/axuGfh4UR9Q?t=9271.
You just haven't tried OpeningAI's latest orione model. A company employee said it is soooo smart, can you believe it?
And the government is like, goddamn we are so scareded of it.
Im telling you AGI december 2024, you'll will see!
Year of the Linux Deskto....oh wait wrong thread, same same though. If we just wait one more year, we'll have FULL FSD!
Next year, I promise, is the year we all switch to crypto, just wait!
In just two years, no one will be driving 4,000lb cars anymore, everyone just needs a Segway.
We're going to have "just walk out" grocery stores in two years, where you pick items off the shelf, and 10,000 outsourced Indians will review your purchase and complete your CC transaction in about a half hour. our awesome technology will handle everything, charging you for your groceries as you leave the store, in just two more years!
That's possible though, if there are some really bad drivers screwing the average.
Edit: it's probably even true in this case, it just depends on how you define 'good'. For example if you define it by getting tickets, only 36% of drivers are issued tickets. The average number of tickets issued is > 0 but the majority of drivers aren't issued tickets, the average is skewed, because most drivers are at 0.
The latest llms get a perfect score on the south Korean SAT and can pass the bar. More than pure marketing if you ask me. That does not mean 90% of business that claim ai are nothing more than marketing or the business that are pretty much just a front end for GPT APIs. llms like claud even check their work for hallucinations. Even if we limited all ai to llms they would still be groundbreaking.
Korean SAT are highly standardized in multiple choice form and there is an immense library of past exams that both test takers and examiners use. I would be more impressed if the LLMs could show also step by step problem work out...
Mr. Torvalds is truly a generous man, giving the current AI market an analysis of 10% usefulness is probably a decimal or two more than will end up panning out once the hype bubble pops.
And then people will complain about that saying it’s almost all hype and no substance.
Then that one tech bro will keep insisting that lemmy is being unfair to AI and there are so many good use cases.
No one is denying the 10% use cases, we just don’t think it’s special or needs extra attention since those use cases already had other possible algorithmic solutions.
Tech bros need to realize, even if there are some use cases for AI, there has not been any revolution, stop trying to make it happen and enjoy your new slightly better tool in silence.
Hi! It's me, the guy you discussed this with the other day! The guy that said Lemmy is full of AI wet blankets.
I am 100% with Linus AND would say the 10% good use cases can be transformative.
Since there isn't any room for nuance on the Internet, my comment seemed to ruffle feathers. There are definitely some folks out there that act like ALL AI is worthless and LLMs specifically have no value. I provided a list of use cases that I use pretty frequently where it can add value. (Then folks started picking it apart with strawmen).
I gotta say though this wave of AI tech feels different. It reminds me of the early days of the web/computing in the late 90s early 2000s. Where it's fun, exciting, and people are doing all sorts of weird,quirky shit with it, and it's not even close to perfect. It breaks a lot and has limitations but their is something there. There is a lot of promise.
Like I said else where, it ain't replacing humans any time soon, we won't have AGI for decades, and it's not solving world hunger. That's all hype bro bullshit. But there is actual value here.
Hi! It's me, the guy you discussed this with the other day! The guy that said Lemmy is full of AI wet blankets.
Omg you found me in another post. I’m not even mad; I do like how passionate you are about things.
Since there isn't any room for nuance on the Internet, my comment seemed to ruffle feathers. There are definitely some folks out there that act like ALL AI is worthless and LLMs specifically have no value. I provided a list of use cases that I use pretty frequently where it can add value. (Then folks started picking it apart with strawmen).
What you’re talking about is polarization and yeah, it’s a big issue.
This is a good example, I never did any strawman nor disagree with the fact that it can be useful in some shape or form. I was trying to say its value is much much lower than what people claim to be.
But that’s the issue with polarization, me saying there is much less value can be interpreted as absolute zero, and I apologize for contributing to the polarization.
There was a great article in the Journal of Irreproducible Results years ago about the development of Artificial Stupidity (AS). I always do a mental translation to AS when ever I see AI.
AI is nothing more than a way for big businesses to automate more work and fire more people.
and do that at the expense of 30+ years of power reduction and efficiency gains, to the point that private companies are literally buying/building/restarting old power plants just to cover the insane power demand, because literally operating a power plant is cheaper than paying the energy costs.
For the common every day person its 3d tv and every other bullshit fad that burned brilliantly for all of 3 seconds before snuffing itself out, leaving people to have had paid for overpriced garbage thats no longer useful.
In a way he’s right, but it depends! If you take even a common example like Chat GPT or the native object detection used in iPhone cameras, you’d see that there’s a lot of cool stuff already enabled by our current way of building these tools. The limitation right now, I think, is reacting to new information or scenarios which a model isn’t trained on, which is where all the current systems break. Humans do well in new scenarios based on their cognitive flexibility, and at least I am unaware of a good framework for instilling cognitive flexibility in machines.
I work at a company big into AI. We build our own models. Our senior management drank the Kool-Aid. We don't have search on our Intranet any more, just LLM chatbots.
Our TLS certificate expired last week on our main web page. I tried to find the contact details for the team responsible and the thing just hallucinated e-mail addresses.
I admit I understand nothing about ai and haven't used it in any way nor do I plan to. It feels wrong for me and I believe it might fuck us harder than social media ever could.
But the pictures it creates, the stories and conversations don't seem like hot air. And I guess, compared to the internet we are at the stage where the modem is still singing the songs of its people. There is more to come.
I heard it can code at a level where entry positions might be in danger to be swapped for ai. It detects cancer visually, recognizes people by the way they walk in China.
Also I fear that vulnerable persons might fall for those conversation bots in a world where there is less and less personal contact.
Gotta admit I'm a little afraid it will make most of us useless in the future.
It makes somewhat passable mediocrity, very quickly when directly used for such things. The stories it writes from the simplest of prompts is always shallow and full of cliche (and over-represented words like "delve"). To get it to write good prose basically requires breaking down writing, the activity, into its stream of constituent, tiny tasks and then treating the model like the machine it is. And this hack generalizes out to other tasks, too, including writing code. It isn't alive. It isn't even thinking. But if you treat these things as rigid robots getting specific work done, you can make then do real things. The problem is asking experts to do all of that labor to hyper segment the work and micromanage the robot. Doing that is actually more work than just asking the expert to do the task themselves. It is still a very rough tool. It will definitely not replace the intern, just yet. At least my interns submit code changes that compile.
Don't worry, human toil isn't going anywhere. All of this stuff is super new and still comparatively useless. Right now, the early adopters are mostly remixing what has worked reliably. We have yet to see truly novel applications yet. What you will see in the near future will be lots of "enhanced" products that you can talk to. Whether you want to or not. The human jobs lost to the first wave of AI automation will likely be in the call center. The important industries such as agriculture are already so hyper automated, it will take an enormous investment to close the 2% left. Many, many industries will be that way, even after AI. And for a slightly more cynical take: Human labor will never go away because having power over machines isn't the same as having power over other humans. We won't let computers make us all useless.
Thanks for easing my mind a little. You definetly did in perspective to labor.
You also reminded me I already had my first encounter with a callcenter AI by telekom and it was just as useless as the human equivalent, they seem to get similar training!
I just hope it won't hinder or replace interhuman connection on a larger scale cause in this sphere mediocrity might be enough and we are already lacking there.
The albeit small but present virtual girlfriend culture in Japan really shocked me and I feel we are not far away from things like AI-droid wives for example.
I know tons of full stack developers who use AI to GREATLY speed up their workflow. I've used AI image generators to put something I wanted into the concept stage before I paid an artist to do the work with the revisions I wanted that I couldn't get AI to produce properly.
And first and foremost, they're a great use in surfacing information that is discussed and available, but might be buried with no SEO behind it to surface it. They are terrible at deducing things themselves, because they can't 'think', or coming up with solutions that others haven't already - but so long as people are aware of those limitations, then they're a pretty good tool to have.
It's a reactionary opinion when people jump to the 'but they're stealing art!' -- isn't your brain also stealing art when it's inspired by others art? Artists don't just POOF, and have the capability to be artists. They learn slowly over time, using others as inspiration or as training to improve. That's all stable diffusors do - just a lot faster.
Did you actually listen to what he said or are you just reading the headline and making it fit another narrative to respond to?
Because he also said he thinks it’s going to change the world, he just hates the marketing BS that’s overhyping it.
Probably because, as anyone who’s actually used AI knows, it has some core weaknesses. But the marketers are happy to gloss over that lie and just say that it will be able to do nearly anything.
He said it’s interesting, but to give it five years to see how it’s actually useful, which is probably the most sane take you can have about AI imo.
You might want to look up the definition of reactionary. Because that's...exactly what it means. To oppose reform/advancements.
You okay there bud?
In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante—the previous political state of society—which the person believes possessed positive characteristics that are absent from contemporary society.
Congratulations -- Currently you and 18 others are not smarter than an average high schooler.
Speaking as someone who worked on AI, and is a fervent (local) AI enthusiast... it's 90% marketing and hype, at least.
These things are tools, they spit out tons of garbage, they basically can't be used for anything where the output could likely be confidently wrong, and the way they're trained is still morally dubious at best. And the corporate API business model of "stifle innovation so we can hold our monopoly then squeeze users" is hellish.
As you pointed out, generative AI is a fantastic tool, but it is a TOOL, that needs some massive changes and improvements, wrapped up in hype that gives it a bad name... I drank some of the kool-aid too when llama 1 came out, but you have to look at the market and see how much fud and nonsense is flying around.
As another (local) AI enthusiast I think the point where AI goes from "great" to "just hype" is when it's expected to generate the correct response, image, etc on the first try.
For example, telling an AI to generate a dozen images from a prompt then picking a good one or re-working the prompt a few times to get what you want. That works fantastically well 90% of the time (assuming you're generating something it has been trained on).
Expecting AI to respond with the correct answer when given a query > 50% of the time or expecting it not to get it dangerously wrong? Hype. 100% hype.
It'll be a number of years before AI is trustworthy enough not to hallucinate bullshit or generate the exact image you want on the first try.
they’re a great use in surfacing information that is discussed and available, but might be buried with no SEO behind it to surface it
This is what I've seen many people claim. But it is a weak compliment for AI, and more of a criticism of the current web search engines. Why is that information unavailable to search engines, but is available to LLMs? If someone has put in the work to find and feed the quality content to LLMs, why couldn't that same effort have been invested in Google Search?
He isnt wrong. This comes from somebody who technically uses ai daily to help develop ( github copilot in visual studio to assist in code prediction based on the code base of the solution ), but AI is marketed even worse than blockchain back in 2017. Its everywhere, in every product, even if it doesnt have ai or has nothing to do with it. Monitor ai shit? Mouse with ai? Hell, ive seen a sketch of a fucking toaster with 'ai'.
There is shit like microsoft recall, apple intelligence, bing co pilot, office co pilot, ...
All of those are just... Nothing special or useful.
There are also chatbots which bring nothing new to the table either.
Everyone and everything wants to market there stuff with ai and its disgusting.
Does that mean that current ai tech cant bring anything to the table? No, it totally can, but 90% of ai stuff out there is, just like linus says, marketing bullshit.
I used copilot until finally getting fed up last week and turning it off. It was a net negative to my productivity.
Sure, when you're doing repetitive operations that are mostly copy paste and changing names, it's pretty decent. It can save dozens of seconds, maybe even a minute or two. That's great and a welcome assist, even if I have to correct minor things around 50% of the time.
But when an error slips through and I end up spending 20 minutes tracking down the problem later, all that saved time vanishes.
And then the other times where my IDE is frozen because the plugin is stuck in some loop and eating every last resource and I spend the next 20 minutes cursing and killing processes, manually looking for recent updates that hadn't yet triggered update notifications, etc... well, now we're in the red, AND I'm pissed off.
So no, AI is not some huge boon to developer productivity. Maybe it's more useful to junior developers in the short term, but I have definitely dealt with more than a few problems that seem to derive from juniors taking AI answers and not understanding the details enough to catch the problems it introduced. And if juniors frequently rely on AI without gaining deep understanding, we're going to have worse and worse engineers as a result.