Machine Learning is such a better name. It describes what is happening - a machine is learning to do some specific thing. In this case to take text and output pictures… It’s limited by what it learned from. It learned from arrays of numbers representing colours of pixels, and from strings of text. It doesn’t know what that text means, it just knows how to translate it into arrays of numbers… There is no intelligence, only limited learning.
Machine Learning isn’t a good name for these services because they aren’t learning. You don’t teach them by interacting with them. The developers did the teaching and the machine did the learning before you ever opened the browser window. You’re interacting with the result of learning, not with the learning.
Isn’t meaning just comparing and contracting similarly learned patterns against each other and saying “this is not all of those other things”.?
The closer you scrutinize meaning the fuzzier it gets. Linguistically at least, though now that I think about it I suppose the same holds true in science as well.
Yes, we absolutely are different. Okay, maybe if you really boil down every little process our brains do there are similarities, we do also do pattern recognition, yes. But that isn’t all we do, or all ML systems do, either. I think you’re selling yourself short if you think you’re just recognising patterns!
The simplest difference between us and ML systems was pointed out by another commenter - they are trained on a dataset and then they remain static. We constantly re-evaluate old information, take in new information, and formulate new thoughts and change our minds.
We are able to perceive in ways that computers just can’t - they can’t understand what a smell is because they cannot smell, they can’t understand what it is to see in the way that we do because when they process images it is exactly the same to a computer as processing any other series of numbers. They do not have abstract concepts to relate recognised patterns to. Generative AI is unable to be truly creative in the way that we can, because it doesn’t have an imagination, it is replicating based on its inputs. Although, again, people on the internet love to say “that’s what artists do”, I think it’s pretty obvious that we wouldn’t have art in the way we do today if that was true… We would still be painting on the walls of caves.
Because that’s what intelligence is. There’s a very funny video floating around of a squirrel repeatedly trying to bury an acorn in a dog’s fur and completely failing to understand why it’s not working. Now sure, a squirrel is not the smartest animal in the world, but it does have some intelligence, and yet there it is just mindlessly reproducing a pattern in the wrong context. Maybe you’re thinking that humans aren’t like that, that we make decisions by actually thinking through our actions and their consequences instead of just repeating learned patterns. I put it to you that if that were the case, we wouldn’t still be dealing with the same problems that have been plaguing us for millennia.
Well, I think it comes down to a fundamental belief on consciousness. If you’re non religious, you probably think that consciousness is a purely biological and understandable process. This is complete understandable and should be replicable. Therefore, artificial intelligence. But it’s hard as dong to do well.
AI is also the minmax algorithm for solving tic-tac-toe, and the ghosts that chase Pac-Man around. It’s a broad term. It doesn’t always have to mean “mindblowing super-intelligence that surpasses humans in every conceivable way”. So it makes mistakes - therefore it’s not “intelligent” in some way?
A lot of the latest thought in cognitive science couches human cognition in similar terms to pattern recognition - some of the latest theories are known as “predictive processing”, “embodied cognition”, and “4E cognition” if you want to look them up.
The admins do not take kindly to shitposting and satire. I joined to make shitposts but when I found out how hard everyone hates that kind of thing, now I just bitch about tech and politics
KFC uses commercial pressure cookers. You can blow up a kitchen if you aren’t careful around those things. Fast food doesn’t look like it requires skills because they have managed to bring an assembly line to the kitchen. It does require a certain amount of spatial awareness, and the ability to switch tasks rapidly.
I’ve been in one of McAfee’s houses after he died. A friend texted me one morning asking if I’d like to go to McAfee’s house. He had a friend that recently acquired a prior house of McAfee. Of course, I said yes, and drove 2hours to get there.
Decent sized house, probably 6k square feet. There was definitely money put into this place. In-ground pool, hot-tub, the works.
It was just recently acquired. All the furniture in the house was original, left by McAfee! My friend and I were given permission to search the house as far as we wanted, without destroying anything of course. We searched high and low for flash drives, anything really. Searched the dirt “crawlspace” for a bit, you could stand up in there and it looked like someone had been digging around quite a bit.
The only thing we found was a maybe 6x6inch hole cut out of the drywall behind a dresser, like someone knew were something was and took it out the wall.
We played pool on a pool table that had dried splattered blood on it. Found tombstone still tied to a pallet out back that had something along the lines of “RIP BTC”, it also had a qr code, I think it linked to LTC, I can’t remember and the picture was lost due to me leaving my sd card in a phone and selling said phone…
His room was weird, had a pull down like garage door that looked bullet proof and two big doors with wood 6in thick. Probably 50 cameras all over the property.
Weird tid bit, shortly after the family moved in, they had an influx of people coming by and insisting they owned a piece of furniture that was in the house and they want it back. Some of the people insisted to come in and make sure the furniture isn’t there anymore. They were all declined.
And that’s my story of the random text I got from a friend to party and search McAfee’s house.
I can say something similar, if I had a penny for every time the next big thing was pronounced and hyped, but didn’t take off, I could probably afford a Rivian.
I mean it’s not even new. The last decade we mostly just called it machine learning and this type of work has been going on longer than that. It only feels new because we’re putting generative tools in people’s hands. It’s already proven itself, it’s already replacing jobs.
Truth. The generative AI stuff is just slightly better, slightly more accessible machine learning technologies trained on massive amounts of public internet data.
About the jobs part though, it’s also creating a lot of jobs. Will it be more or less jobs long term, it’s hard to say. However, machine learning right now creates a ton of high paying technical jobs.
Every time I see posts like this I remember a frequent argument I had in the early 2000’s.
Every time I talked with photography students (I worked at an art school) or a general photography enthusiast, I got the same smug predictions about digital photography. The resolution sucked, the color sucked, the artist doesn’t have enough control, etc. They all assured me that digital photography might be nice for casual vacation photos and maybe a few specialty applications but no way, no how, not even when hell freezes over would any serious photographer ever consider digital.
At the time I would think back to my annoying grade school discussions with teachers who assured me that (dot matrix) printers just sucked. Serious writing was done by hand and if you didn’t know cursive you might as well be illiterate.
For some reasons people keep forgetting that technology marches on. The dumb glitches that are so easy to make fun of now, will get addressed. There are billions of dollars pouring into AI development. Every major company and country is developing them. The pay rates for AI developer jobs attract huge amounts of people to solve those problems.
And up to now we have zero indication that the current approach isn’t a dead end. Bill Gates, for instance, thinks that GPT-4 is a development plateau: heise.de/-9337989
It’s possible that the current $100 billion market size of AI and all the AI job openings are completely misplaced but that’s indication that a lot of people have pretty high expectations that AI will continue to grow.
Ah, yes, famous expert in artificial intelligence and machine learning, Bill Gates. I’m personally curious what Taylor Swift thinks about Chat GPT 5, myself. That girl’s got a lot of money, which means she must be smart and has smart opinions on topics like generative AI and the efficacy of currently undeveloped LLMs.
Certainly, but none of those technologies completely replaced things. The existing way of doing things became hobbies and remain the preference over the technology which disrupted the field.
Not to mention, technologies will sometimes flop, only to resurface later in a completely different package. The PDA was maybe popular for a year? But now we all have smartphones which effectively capture that concept. The Wii U failed, but the Switch has been wildly popular.
It’s probably premature to say that AI will completely fail, but also that AI will completely replace everything. I just used a Polaroid camera this past weekend at a wedding, and it was enjoyable in a way digital cameras or phones wouldn’t have been. I still write things out at work, particularly if I’m trying to wrap my head around some math or a difficult concept. Typing it out doesn’t work as well.
I think it is safe to say that there are some things AI will never be able to replace, just like there are some things digital cameras couldn’t replace, nor our phones.
There’s either the “it’ll never work” take or the “it’ll destroy the industry!” take, and both are kinda childish. New technologies are tools, nothing more, nothing less. Learn to use them and they’ll make your life easier. Integrate them if they’re threatening your livelihood. Learn and adapt, it’s how progress has always worked.
I’m guessing this argument has been going on longer than either of us can remember.
There was a long time when guns were considered interesting toys but not something a sane person would take onto the battlefield; especially not without some sort of backup. Hell, the “three musketeers” were more known for their fencing than their firearms skill.
I’m sure back in the day some chucklehead complained that papyrus was cute but anything important had to be carved in stone tablet.
lemmyshitpost
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.