I really appreciate your dismissive, arrogant tone. Your casual dismissing of my anecdote really added to how you provided even less substance to support your point.
But hey, it got you those “supporting the echo chamber by dunking on dissent” up votes, and that’s what we’re all here for, right?
Unpopular Opinion Incoming
I was assigned at work to evaluate a few LLMs for potential adoption, so I spent a solid week doing so.
Most of the “AI is broken and doesn’t work” on here is solid echo chamber cope. It’s more competent than several of my coworkers, though it’s thankfully not ready to replace knowledge workers as it requires a knowledge baseline to best direct it and evaluate its answers.
I still advised against using it for multiple reasons, including ethics, but much of Lemmy is playing make believe about the actual capabilities of LLMs.
It’s so they can repurpose that capacity for developing robots. It’s not good at all.
OpenAI told the BBC on Wednesday that it has discontinued Sora so that it can focus on other developments, such as robotics “that will help people solve real-world, physical tasks”.
While I agree with your sentiment, the glaring difference is none of the items you listed are used in situations which result in high speed, high mass, and resultantly high energy collisions.
EV fires wouldn’t be as newsworthy if Tesla didn’t have idiotic door latch mechanisms that trap occupants in their cars. EV fires would be less impactful if they didn’t use lithium batteries and if those batteries didn’t typically span the bottom of the passenger compartment.
Vaguely understanding it made me feel not quite so old, and I’m firmly middle-aged.
Ja, they label it as cellulose. Technically true and something that does have valid food manufacturing uses, but using it as filler is ridiculous.
Electrical engineering. My mentioned coworkers are competent but more junior in the field. We did a miniature internal study and found the best models provided accurate, relevant information on the first prompt about 90% of the time when asked to explain or verify concepts. The remainder consisted of hallucinations or misunderstood queries.
They struggled with questions that instead required complex problem, providing some mixture of appropriate solutions, overly complex but still functional solutions, and hallucinated shite.
I recommended that we do not move forward with adopting AI in any capacity. While it has some utility for basic information retrieval and fact checking, it still required someone with sufficient knowledge to be able to quickly evaluate the quality of its output. Helpful for someone who knows what they’re doing, dangerous 10% if the time for someone who does not. I also highlighted the ethical concerns, many of which my peers were unaware.