• Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Correct. Dress it up however you like, but LLM and ML programs are probability gamblers all the way down. We’re building a conversation tool, that doesn’t truly comprehend the language because it’s a calculator at its core - it’s like asking your eyeballs to see in UHF frequencies.

    They’re called “computers” for a reason, and we are deep in the myopic tech tree of further and further complexity. The current wave of AI has solid potential, but not globally for all applications. It is a great at ‘digital assistant’ roles and is already killing it in CCTV monitoring software. Mindjourney can make incredible images, but it can’t make art. ChatGPT can write, but it’s a terrible author or speechwriter.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Mindjourney can make incredible images, but it can’t make art.

      Mostly because you’re defining “art” in such a way that being produced by MidJourney disqualifies it automatically.

      • anachronist@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        This is the same middlebrow dismissal that AI advocates have been using for years.

        “It’s just a stochastic parrot.” “How do you know that you aren’t just a stochastic parrot?”

        Well we do know. There are experts on human cognition. They have been studying it for decades. We may not know enough about it to know how to make a computer do it. But we certainly know enough about it to know when a computer chatbot is not doing it.