166
submitted 1 year ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SamC@lemmy.nz 11 points 1 year ago

I think they have some areas where they're very useful, but beyond those areas they're only OK at best. They don't come close to living up to the hype, which is mostly based on "the next version will be mind blowing!".

They are a new type of app, nothing more. New types of apps can be extremely useful, and make a lot of tasks easier, e.g. spreadsheets. I would say at best generative AI is as game changing as spreadsheets were, but maybe less.

The hype machine wants us to believe they are as revolutionary as the PC itself, or the car. In fact 10 times as revolutionary! I just don't buy it... at least not in the foreseeable future.

[-] greenskye@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

There was this point where VR gaming seemed like an inevitable successor to traditional gaming. It was everywhere and improving rapidly. There were core concerns, but most felt that those could be solved with time. The technology had so much potential.

This is how the current AI solutions feel to me right now. There are a small-ish group of people who find them very useful and use them often. There are a large group of people who are currently on the hype bandwagon, talking about all the potential they hold. But currently they have yet to truly hit mainstream use.

With VR, all that hype and potential seems largely dead. The promised advancements haven't seemed like enough to take over from traditional games, the fundamental issues haven't been fixed because they're too hard or too costly to fix.

I'm still unsure if AI will go this same route, or if it will eventually break into more mainstream. I think probably the most likely route is something like how Siri/Alexa worked out. Some people use voice assistants all the time, others basically never do. They never quite fully delivered on the revolution they promised, but they were useful enough to stick around. That's how I feel about the current AI approach.

I think long term we'll get some other approach that will once again kick off the AI hype machine, but the current AI approach is only going to find limited success because it's going to be really, really hard to get it to a place where you can reasonably trust the output.

[-] joe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

We don't even know how they arrive at the output they arrive at, and it takes lengthy research just to find out how, say, an LLM picks the next word in an arbitrarily chosen sentence fragment. And that's for the simpler models! (Like GPT-2)

That's pretty crazy when you think about it.

So, I don't think it's fair to suggest they're just "a new type of app". I'm not sure what "revolutionary" really means but the technology behind the generative AI is certainly going to be applied elsewhere.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The paper that invented http had a not "interesting idea" from the researcher who reviewed it.

These AI are a revolution. But like all revolution it will take some time for the society to absorb it.

this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
166 points (94.1% liked)

Technology

34789 readers
416 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS