• brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    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.

    • Riskable@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      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 wing? 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.