This movie is like a fever dream. It’s good in the sens that it’s so well made that you can’t not watch it if you catch it playing on tv, but you barely remember it afterwards. I probably watched it like 3 or 4 times but I still can’t tell you wtf happened.
Yeah kinda tired of it. We don’t even have AI yet, and here people are throwing around the term right and left and then accusing everything under the sun to be generated by it.
I know enough about how LLMs work to gauge how intelligent they are. The reason I have a different opinion than you is not because you or I lack understanding of how LLMs or diffusion models work, its simply that my definition of AI is more “lenient” than yours.
EDIT: Arguing about which definition is more correct is pointless because it’s totally subjective. However I think that a more lenient definition of AI is more useful in this case, because with more strict definitions we probably never will have something that could be considered AI.
There is no intelligence. There is only algorithms. The place we are at is not anywhere near approaching artificial intelligence, it is only buzzwords. If you know about how this works this should be clear. I think I was being very objective: we have statistical engines and diffusion formulas. No intelligence, of any kind, is being demonstrated. AI is a marketing term at this point. No original ideas, no real knowledge of past or future events, no ability to determine correct answers from false ones. Even the better models that try to basically watch the other models are still not that great beyond the basics of “what is the next most likely word here”.
While I think that is a different meaning than the current fad/bubble driven meaning that marketing groups would have people believe AI is, it’s interesting how fast people have forgotten the old uses of the term.
Personally I try to avoid using it to describe those now, since AI in popular parlance has been extended to at least imply a lot more lately.
It’s not completely subjective. Think about it from an information theory perspective. We want a word that maximizes the amount of information conveyed, and there are many situations where you need a word that distinguishes AGI, LLMs, deep learning, reinforcement learning, pathfinding, decision trees and the like from the outputs of other computer science subfields. “AI” has historically been that word, so redefining it without a replacement means we don’t have a word for this thing we want to talk about anymore.
I refuse to replace a single commonly used word in my vocabulary with a full sentence. If anyone wants to see this changed, then offer an alternative.
…then we will never have something considered AI then. Making the definition more lenient doesn’t magically make something that isn’t AI into something that is.
Or we just use the definition that many people have used for ages and call the code controlling Minecraft creepers are. it’s only recently that everyone has been getting upset about ai being used too much
Machine learning is a subset of artificial intelligence, along with things like machine perception, reasoning, and planning. Like I said in a different thread, ai is a really, really broad term. It doesn’t need to actually be Jarvis to be AI. You’re thinking of general ai
AI is broader term then you think, it goes back to the beginnings of modern computing with Alan Turing. You seem to be thinking about the movie definition of AI, not the academic.
I am fully aware of Alan Turnings work and it is rather exceptional when you read that formulas were be8ng created for diffusion models in the late 40’s.
But i really don’t care thar whoever wrote that wikipedia page believes the hype. We are still in statistical algorithm stages. Even on the wiki page it says thar AI is aware of its surroundings as a feature of AI. We do not have that.
Also, it appears that most people are still not fooled by “ai” as we have it today, meaning it does not pass even the most basic Turing test. Which a lot of academic believe is not even enough as a marker of ai ad that too wad from the 50’s
“Aware of its surroundings” is a pretty general phrase though. You, presumably a human, can only be as aware as far as your senses enable you to be. We (humans) tend to assume that we have complete awareness of our surroundings, but how could we possibly know? If there was something out there we weren’t aware of, well we aren’t aware of it. What we know as our “surroundings” is a construct the brain invents to parse our own “raw sensor data”. To an LLM, it “senses” strings of tokens. That’s its whole environment, it’s all that it can comprehend. From its perspective, there’s nothing else. Basically all I’m saying is that you seem to be taking awareness-of-surroundings to mean awareness-of-surroundings-like-a-human, when it’s much more broad than that. Arguably uselessly broad, granted, but the intent of the phrase is to say that an AI should observe and react flexibly.
Really all “AI” is just a handwavy term for “the next step in flexible, reactive computing”. Today that happens to look like LLMs and diffusion models.
I’m curious now. Which band is this? (Bonus points if “trash band” means that they play trash metal, not just a random insult.) EDIT: disregard that, I conflated both words.
I’m not commenting to be a dick here, but I’m speaking for myself also when I say this, but take a break from lemmy. Trust me, you will FEEL a difference 💯
Do it for a week. Honestly I have to sometimes, even though our instance yes, it does allow for politics but equally from both sides of the political isle
We aren’t a political instance, we’re not interested in that. Like, at all… I’m mentioning politics in regards to this post because that’s what their problem is. The extremist shit.
Listen, listen to me before your drive yourself crazy with lemmy bullshit
Very few ppl understand that lemmy is just a hobby for fun. t’s not the next Twitter or Facebook it never will be. Ever. Ever ever ever.
Why? And if that’s not obvious to you, then you’re part of the problem.
This is what happens when ppl think open source is the answer to cooperations. There’s no difference other then instead of one rich guy calling the shots, you now have any and all, mentally unstable political extremists on zillions of servers, moding every community and admining every instance, shutting you out. How tf is that any better.?
Point: Some ppl have serious issues and use lemmy as an escape for some semblance of control of their lives. Don’t waste your precious mentally energy on them. Come, take my hand, and let’s touch grass together…
I don’t care that much. And I don’t need to care that much, because of the nature of the system.
The Threadiverse is a federated system. There isn’t one community. There isn’t one instance. There isn’t just one single software package backing it. There’s a marketplace of communities out there, and they compete.
If you don’t like how community A is being run, then head over to community B. If you don’t like how instance A is being run, then head over to instance B. Over time, I expect people to head where things are working well, and away from where they aren’t.
I’m not personally really enthusiastic about, say, lemmygrad as an instance. But…I don’t need to run around getting upset about how things are being done there, because I can just avoid it.
I have no problem with people that can’t handle not advocating for violence or handle being civil having their comments deleted. I’ve been an asshole a few times on bad days and had comments removed, but I accept that sometimes I can be out of pocket.
I have seen zero compelling evidence of mod abuse in the linked thread.
As others have pointed out, open an issue/bug report if there is a problem. What do you expect them to do? Check social media 24/7 to see if someone complains?
No, not at all, I’m not sure where you got that idea from.
What I’m talking about is when developers (or anyone else designing a public interface) utilise something which produces unintuitive results - in this case it’s the idea that when a user clicks in a box in the middle of the screen, the next thing that happens is that typed text appears somewhere other than where they clicked.
That’s not a bug, that’s just bad design.
I was sympathising with the OP who encountered this particular example, but also making fun of a general trend for this sort of thing, where companies and designers sometimes seem to think that regardless of what the user did, they should be railroaded into doing what the designer wants them to do.
It’s the wrong approach IMO, and leads to frustrating interactions with software. Or at least mildly irritating ones.
mildlyinfuriating
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.