"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.
-
@mastodonmigration cocaine is a substance with well-documented effects. AI is a tool whose results depend heavily on how it's used. the analogy doesn't work.
You sound like a cocaine user
-
@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.
Sea Lion
️ -
@mellowfish That's... just your opinion. Agentic coding (I don't think you can call it "engineering") is heavily subsidized by big AI companies right now, and that's going away sooner or later. The software world will have a painful wake up call from all the spaghetti code being pumped out right now.
@Gargron @mellowfish I feel like some people think if and when the bubble pops, that major corporations are all universally going to completely stop investing in AI because it is "so bad" and AI is just going to disappear. Feels like wishful thinking. I am not an AI fan generally, but I see things that it is useful for and I also see how far it has come in just a handful of years. Two years ago people laughed at the shitty videos that it made. Now it makes a lot of videos that most people would
-
I am pretty sure @Gargron could get great results if he wanted to use these tools. I completely respect his choice not to. but "I don't want to use it" and "it's a bad tool" are two very different things.
-
You sound like a cocaine user
@mastodonmigration and you sound like someone who’s never tried coffee but is absolutely certain everyone who drinks it is an addict
-
I am pretty sure @Gargron could get great results if he wanted to use these tools. I completely respect his choice not to. but "I don't want to use it" and "it's a bad tool" are two very different things.
-
@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.Not relevant to whether or not it has failed or works poorly, which is what the original post was about
-
@Gargron @mellowfish I feel like some people think if and when the bubble pops, that major corporations are all universally going to completely stop investing in AI because it is "so bad" and AI is just going to disappear. Feels like wishful thinking. I am not an AI fan generally, but I see things that it is useful for and I also see how far it has come in just a handful of years. Two years ago people laughed at the shitty videos that it made. Now it makes a lot of videos that most people would
@Gargron @mellowfish never be able to identify as AI. In two years. Two years is practically nothing even in the context of the relatively short history of the whole of computer science. Where will it be in another 5 years? Another 10. Part of me wishes this AI tech had never been invented. But I think it is only going to continue to get better and it is most likely here to stay in some form or another.
-
@skavish I understand this is hard for you to hear, because you like to use LLMs. But it's the sort of criticism you have to deal with if you want your opinions on your craft to be taken seriously.
"You could probably do good things with them if you wanted to" is such an embarrassing argument to make. You're admitting you have no evidence, and are appealing to the assumed egotism of @Gargron to get him to make your own damn argument for you. Take the L.
-
calling code that’s currently being generated by AI agents “spaghetti code” is a pretty sure sign that you either haven’t actually used it seriously or don’t know how to use it.
AI-generated code can absolutely be terrible. so can human-generated code. the interesting question is whether you know how to get the agent to produce good code and how to review, test, and evolve it.
Assuming you are correct that it can be made to produce quality code, what are the odds that, given the speed with which bad code can be created and that management definitely has no idea what good code looks like, they won't push their people to produce huge piles of crap with near zero chance that the few people who do know what they're doing will be able to fix it?
-
@mellowfish That's... just your opinion. Agentic coding (I don't think you can call it "engineering") is heavily subsidized by big AI companies right now, and that's going away sooner or later. The software world will have a painful wake up call from all the spaghetti code being pumped out right now.
-
"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 AI is a solution that search a problem.
Witch is the opposit of what technology must be.
-
"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.
-
"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 Bare minimum, it's an effective front for the wealthiest Tech Bros to corner vital root infrastructure, to squeeze more Capitalist greed out of the 99%.
It's become child's play for them.
-
@skavish I understand this is hard for you to hear, because you like to use LLMs. But it's the sort of criticism you have to deal with if you want your opinions on your craft to be taken seriously.
"You could probably do good things with them if you wanted to" is such an embarrassing argument to make. You're admitting you have no evidence, and are appealing to the assumed egotism of @Gargron to get him to make your own damn argument for you. Take the L.
@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.
-
@FallsMom Cory Doctorow is right on some topics, but I consider him not extreme enough on "AI". This shtick works while there are qualified radiologists who retain their skills. It falls apart once the deskilling effects of "AI" are in the loop.
-
Assuming you are correct that it can be made to produce quality code, what are the odds that, given the speed with which bad code can be created and that management definitely has no idea what good code looks like, they won't push their people to produce huge piles of crap with near zero chance that the few people who do know what they're doing will be able to fix it?
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.
-
@mastodonmigration and you sound like someone who’s never tried coffee but is absolutely certain everyone who drinks it is an addict
"Come on, give it a try, it's no more harmful than coffee." Glad to have not taken the bait.
-
@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.
