"AI" is a failed technology, in the sense that it's neither fit for purpose, nor a likely path to its stated end goal of "AGI", but a lot of people's profits currently depend on pretending it's not.
-
@clayote you are confusing two arguments. I am not claiming Gargron would get good results, I am saying you cant know what results you'd get without actually using the tools. I use them daily to build real software, so I have firsthand experience. you keep demanding evidence while dismissing the possibility of evidence you haven't personally examined. the irony is hard to miss.
@skavish If there were a new type of guitar that somehow got popular, it sounded bad every time I heard it, and the people who thought it sounded good all seemed to turn out not to have much credibility in music theory or anything, but you happened to like it and said to me: "You can't know what results you'd get without actually using the tools,"
Technically, that is a true statement
You seem to believe it has any actual relevance to the question of whether the guitar is good, but it doesn't.
-
@Gargron
I am fascinated by your ad hominem attack, but I'm not here to score points or win a right-or-wrong debate.Why not address the substance of my response and engage in a fair debate based on facts and experiences?
Let me start:
What if a technology doesn't need to provide 100% reliable information to be useful, provided its limitations are understood and appropriately managed?And what if future developments improve the reliability of these models and address some of their current limitations? Would AI still be inherently dangerous and irresponsible as a technological tool?
I'm genuinely interested in the reasoning behind your conclusion that AI is a failed technology.
Re: provided its limitations are understood and appropriately managed
Those are some extremely large qualifications.
The number of people capable of understanding the limitations of LLMs (which I'm pretty sure is what everyone means by AI in these discussions) across a large number of knowledge domains is all too small and probably still greater than the number of people in management capable of managing them appropriately.
-
@golemwire Where is *your* closest mega-data center? How much electricity does it use? How much land was conceded to build that AI data center? What is the dB level hum at the edge of the facility? How much water is needed to cool it?
Let's start with that first, before we start swinging our pro- AI dicks around.@golemwire @Gargron My questions are still relevant. Care to answer?
This might help: https://aidatacenterindex.com -
@skavish If there were a new type of guitar that somehow got popular, it sounded bad every time I heard it, and the people who thought it sounded good all seemed to turn out not to have much credibility in music theory or anything, but you happened to like it and said to me: "You can't know what results you'd get without actually using the tools,"
Technically, that is a true statement
You seem to believe it has any actual relevance to the question of whether the guitar is good, but it doesn't.
@clayote the difference is that i actually use the tools and build real software with them. you are arguing about a guitar you have never played, based on people you do not respect playing it badly. that is not exactly a solid basis for judging the instrument.
-
Maybe not but Fabrice and Linus are peeps I've long trusted and have code I respect that runs half the planet, and I think beyond.
I respect Theo De Raadt too, and understand his issues with licenses.
Gregory Crane's work relevant to my interests and work, and I think the greater good, and he also seems to appreciate the tech in the world of nlp and accessibility in his recent babel themed blog posts.
Regarding your OP I would imagine you are an expert in global financial markets to comment on the finance side of things, I am not.
Not fit for what purpose I suppose is the question?
Seems like the printing press chaos all over again, but the generic mechanical slop from Guttenberg's devilry is evolving.
-
"AI" is a failed technology, in the sense that it's neither fit for purpose, nor a likely path to its stated end goal of "AGI", but a lot of people's profits currently depend on pretending it's not. I am curious to see how long the hype will last once the Nvidia ouroboros ends and money stops being pumped into marketing.
@Gargron hype over substance; what everyone forgets is garbage-in-garbage-out. So much context is now AI generated that models are overfitting.
-
that is a management problem, not an AI problem. bad managers have been pushing engineers to produce crap for decades. AI just makes it faster. the solution is better engineering, not refusing to use better tools.
A solution that is impossible to deploy, given that bad management is endemic to the (publically traded) corporate world, isn't much of a solution, is it?
-
@clayote the difference is that i actually use the tools and build real software with them. you are arguing about a guitar you have never played, based on people you do not respect playing it badly. that is not exactly a solid basis for judging the instrument.
@skavish If I go looking for people who can play that guitar well, never find any, none of its fans give me any compelling examples either, and you give me no examples at all, at what point do I get to conclude that the guitar is bad, and you have bad taste in guitars?
-
A solution that is impossible to deploy, given that bad management is endemic to the (publically traded) corporate world, isn't much of a solution, is it?
frankly, i do not give a shit about big corps with shitty management. AI is a massive multiplier for me and my team. if some incompetent corporate fucks manage to use it to create a mountain of shit, that is their problem. let them burn.
-
@Gargron That's a quite strong stance, that missed proper argumentation. I agree it's not perfect and it has risks, but 'failed"?What is your definition for 'failed'?
Is it the fact that radiologists now can better diagnose breast cancer using AI as a tool to diagnose than without?
Or Is it the fact that it immensely progressed mRNA technology?
Or perhaps is it your fear for a 'new technology' that's alien and could perhaps take over your job and eventually your life?
@Luminous_J @Gargron mRNA? Are you sure?
-
@skavish If I go looking for people who can play that guitar well, never find any, none of its fans give me any compelling examples either, and you give me no examples at all, at what point do I get to conclude that the guitar is bad, and you have bad taste in guitars?
you are free to conclude whatever you want. but i actually use the guitar to build shit every day, while you have decided it sounds bad without ever playing it. whose opinion do you think is more useful here?
-
frankly, i do not give a shit about big corps with shitty management. AI is a massive multiplier for me and my team. if some incompetent corporate fucks manage to use it to create a mountain of shit, that is their problem. let them burn.
As if we all won't burn with them.
If you're lucky enough to be in a little corner of the world with a quality team and management that knows enough to leave you alone, that's great, until the owner cashes out and sells the company and you and your team to one of those incompetent corporate fucks.
I hope that doesn't happen, but the odds aren't great it won't.
-
you are free to conclude whatever you want. but i actually use the guitar to build shit every day, while you have decided it sounds bad without ever playing it. whose opinion do you think is more useful here?
@skavish Well, in music, the opinions of listeners generally are considered to be of primary importance, and it's perfectly common for music critics to be taken seriously despite playing no instruments at all.
So, while the fact that you use the tools gives you some basis for an informed opinion, I'd still tend to favor the opinion of someone who has to work with the code that you produce in ways that you didn't anticipate, such as by incorporating it into their open source project. Good code should be reusable, right?
I don't know whether you have that experience -- you haven't said -- but @Gargron certainly does.
-
"AI" is a failed technology, in the sense that it's neither fit for purpose, nor a likely path to its stated end goal of "AGI", but a lot of people's profits currently depend on pretending it's not. I am curious to see how long the hype will last once the Nvidia ouroboros ends and money stops being pumped into marketing.
@Gargron this got boosted into my timeline.
You are conflating some llms with the umbrella of ai technologies in an apparent reaction to how those companies train and market their llms.
The problem isn't the technology. It's people who are lumped up in trenchcoats of corporations.
Be critical, but be accurate. You're half there.
-
@Gargron this got boosted into my timeline.
You are conflating some llms with the umbrella of ai technologies in an apparent reaction to how those companies train and market their llms.
The problem isn't the technology. It's people who are lumped up in trenchcoats of corporations.
Be critical, but be accurate. You're half there.
@knowprose I am not conflating anything, I use punctuation purposefully.
-
@knowprose I am not conflating anything, I use punctuation purposefully.
@Gargron you're conflating a group of technologies with one part of that group.
But I see you've decided to be irksome. Oh well.
-
Re: provided its limitations are understood and appropriately managed
Those are some extremely large qualifications.
The number of people capable of understanding the limitations of LLMs (which I'm pretty sure is what everyone means by AI in these discussions) across a large number of knowledge domains is all too small and probably still greater than the number of people in management capable of managing them appropriately.
Dear fellow Mastodonians,
As much as I appreciate the responses to my earlier discussion with Mr. Rochko, who seems to have left the building
, I'd like to clarify one thing:My intention was to invite a debate about the overall argument, not to have every illustrative example picked apart in isolation or deal with strange cryptic name calling.
So, by all means, challenge my reasoning, disagree with my conclusions, and bring your counterarguments. That's precisely what I'm here for!
So in essence: let's focus on the substance of the discussion rather than nitpicking individual examples. Let's have a lively, respectful debate. Thank you!
-
@skavish Well, in music, the opinions of listeners generally are considered to be of primary importance, and it's perfectly common for music critics to be taken seriously despite playing no instruments at all.
So, while the fact that you use the tools gives you some basis for an informed opinion, I'd still tend to favor the opinion of someone who has to work with the code that you produce in ways that you didn't anticipate, such as by incorporating it into their open source project. Good code should be reusable, right?
I don't know whether you have that experience -- you haven't said -- but @Gargron certainly does.
food critics do not need to be chefs, but if you have never cooked, maybe do not lecture chefs about what their kitchen can produce
i have been a software engineer for 30 years and review 10–30 pull requests a day. the majority involve ai-generated code. i see firsthand what these tools produce, good and bad. you are arguing about what you imagine they can do, while i work with the results every day. code review is code review, regardless of who wrote the code.
-
food critics do not need to be chefs, but if you have never cooked, maybe do not lecture chefs about what their kitchen can produce
i have been a software engineer for 30 years and review 10–30 pull requests a day. the majority involve ai-generated code. i see firsthand what these tools produce, good and bad. you are arguing about what you imagine they can do, while i work with the results every day. code review is code review, regardless of who wrote the code.
-
@crazyeddie you are missing the point. his engineering expertise isn't in question. he explicitly said he's never used AI. so how can he confidently judge what AI-generated code looks like when the tools are used effectively?
@skavish
I have looked over several GNN generated codebases – most of them were the criticised spagetthi code, usually with bonus points for being instant abandonware.I have also seen a few that were actually well-maintained and based on their history it was obvious that a lot of effort was put into avoiding spagetthi, making sure their tests deserved the name, adding and refining long design documents, ...
Based on what I saw I’m very sceptical that they ended up being significantly faster using this technique than just limiting their GNN usage to interactive research (or even none at all if they are already well-versed in the given domain and programming environment) and then self-writing the code by hand. They definitely would have used only a fraction of the electricity and water that way for sure.
Why bother even trying to get into something you know is way worse in externalities than the status quo if there is no way it will be able to compensate in any way if done correctly?
@crazyeddie
