• Technus@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 days ago

    These models are nothing more than glorified autocomplete algorithms parroting the responses to questions that already existed in their input.

    They’re completely incapable of critical thought or even basic reasoning. They only seem smart because people tend to ask the same stupid questions over and over.

    If they receive an input that doesn’t have a strong correlation to their training, they just output whatever bullshit comes close, whether it’s true or not. Which makes them truly dangerous.

    And I highly doubt that’ll ever be fixed because the brainrotten corporate middle-manager types that insist on implementing this shit won’t ever want their “state of the art AI chatbot” to answer a customer’s question with “sorry, I don’t know.”

    I can’t wait for this stupid AI craze to eat its own tail.

    • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      Last I checked (which was a while ago) “AI” still can’t pass the most basic of tasks such as “show me a blank image”/“show me a pure white image”. the LLM will output the most intense fever dream possible but never a simple rectangle filled with #fff coded pixels. I’m willing to debate the potentials of AI again once they manage to do that without those “benchmarks” getting special attention in the training data.

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 days ago

    Of course they don’t, logical reasoning isn’t just guessing a word or phrase that comes next.

    As much as some of these tech bros want human thinking and creativity to be reducible to mere pattern recognition, it isn’t, and it never will be.

    But the corpos and Capitalists don’t care, because their whole worldview is based in the idea that humans are only as valuable as the profitability they generate for a company.

    They don’t see any value in poetry, or philosophy, or literature, or historical analysis, or visual arts unless it can be patented, trademarked, copyrighted, and sold to consumers at a good markup.

    As if the only difference between Van Goh’s art and an LLM is the size of sample data and efficiency of an algorithm.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      23 days ago

      You don’t have to get all philosophical, since the value art is almost by definition debatable.

      These models can’t do basic logic. They already fail at this. And that’s actually relevant to corpos if you can suddenly convince a chatbot to reduce your bill by 60% because bears don’t eat mangos or some other nonsensical statement.