• mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        “AI” or LLMs are great for people without skill. They love them and get quite aggressive when you insult the machine.

        • Electricd@lemmybefree.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          I love the arguments: none

          AI is broader than LLMs

          When you’re attacking an entire field with no arguments, and saying it’s shit based on your feelings rather than facts, expect people to disagree

          • Norah (pup/it/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 minutes ago

            It’s not really about feelings? It’s provably, demonstrably wrong a bunch of the time. It’s pathologically incapable of saying “I don’t know this”. Also you’re nitpicking, they may have conflated LLMs with AI but so is the article and you clearly knew what OC was talking about.

      • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Not if you use “AI” as the abbreviation of “artificial intelligence”.
        If you use AI as meaning “what chatGPT & co are” then it’s a trueism.

        • Zacryon@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          But yes. Exactly in the use of “Artificial Intelligence”.

          Artificial Intelligence is a wide field, consisting of a plethora of methods. LLMs like ChatGPT are part of this wide field, as per definition how researchers are describing the field.

          The “intelligence” part is an issue though if taken literal, since we have no clear definition of what “intelligence” even is. Neither for human / natural intelligence, nor for artificial. But that’s how the field was labled. We have created a category for a bunch of methods, models and algorithms and sticked “AI” onto it. Therefore I stand by what I have said before:

          It is AI.

          Due to the lack of a clear definition for “intelligence” I would coarsely outline AI as: mimicking natural thinking, problem solving and decision processes without necessarily being identical. (This makes it difficult to distinguish it from plain calculators though, so a better definition is required.) So if we have a model that is able to distinguish cat pictures from non-cat pictures, that’s AI. And if we have “autocorrect on steroids” (credit to Dirk Hohndel) like ChatGPT, that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.