this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
156 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1641 readers
194 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CarbonBasedNPU@lemm.ee 14 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I fucking hate that everyone has just accepted calling them AI. They are not AI they are LLMs which are nowhere close to what the sci-fi idea of AI is and no matter what sam says I don't think that they are the way to getting an AGI.

For clarification I understand that LLMs are a subset of AI but it feels like calling squares rectangles technically true but misleading.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Not only that, calling the field "AI" is built in hype.

  • I work in the field of intelligent machines.

  • Oh cool, so you can build intelligent machines?

  • Hell no. We just call the field that. For reasons.

Edit: my dialogue dashes became blocks. Must be an intelligent machine changing them or something.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 40 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I fucking knew this story was bullshit, and the scientist emailing a random plebe at Google (like some low level employee would know or be allowed to be honest about AI shitfuckery) all shocked was a joke, too. Pretty disappointed with a scientist feeding into this horseshit.

When it first ran, I posited that if they had emailed their documentation to someone with a Gmail address, it might have been up for grabs for sucking down the maw of Google's AI monstrosities.

Finally, even when it comes to the "right" answer there is no way to know if it hallucinated it's way to such an answer! Which makes it getting the "right" answer effectively pointless.

[–] nightsky@awful.systems 14 points 21 hours ago

The AI guys are really playing with the exact same cheat every time, aren't they? Thanks to pivot-to-ai for continuing to shine a light on this... I hope the wider press eventually learns about it, too.

[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 16 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

aren't so-called AIs really just a computer version of the infinite monkey/ typewriter thought experiment?

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 3 points 9 hours ago

No, the typewriters are supposed to be random, this is guided based on previous work, so a whole space of output becomes extremely unlikely (so without looking at math for it, those spaces would show up very rarely if you then ran the infinite monkey experiment infinite times).

[–] Hexarei@programming.dev 4 points 13 hours ago

It's like that but if they were guided towards answers that sound reasonably likely