10% is being generous. The parts of “AI” that aren’t just an expensive way of getting exciting-looking but unreliable results are mundane things like autocorrect, image upscaling models, handwriting recognition and such: unglamorous statistical learning in narrowly constrained domains nobody would claim is on the verge of becoming sentient and spawning the Singularity.
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
178 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
1443 readers
1214 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
LLMs can be very useful if you understand how they work. The danger is when you assume that its correct.
This. Sorry but I'm a web developer and one of my colleagues obviously uses it without checking if it is correct, then bugs me or others when he doesn't understand why it doesn't work as expected. It is frustrating as hell and I've explained it to him multiple times:
-
Over prompt the AI if you are going to use it. Long lengthy prompts that are very succinct but give as much context as possible.
-
It is highly preferable to check other sources first like Stack Overflow. Even Medium articles can be better than using AI sometimes.
-
Type out what the AI output rather than just copy and paste. As you type line by line, explain to yourself what is happening.
-
Question everything. Do you think this code will work. Why will it work?
-
Test the code. If it doesn't work as expected, trouble shoot it.
-
Don't be afraid to scrap the whole thing and start over. Even open another prompt and try again if you really think the AI can answer the question (there are many cases where your problem is just too specific and the AI can't).
He does none of these things. I swear he is the laziest developer I've ever met, and I've met my fair share.
That sounds like more work than just doing the thing.
I have copilot in my IDE and it's basically worse than the 'dumb' autocomplete that just builds off the existing codebase. Copilot knows all the code on GitHub, but doesn't seem to know anything about the local codebase.
As I suspected, I'm better off just doing the fucking thing myself.
Don't blame all of AI because your coworker is lazy.
Also its best not to create really long prompts as that can confuse it. Instead, do your job. Its good for smaller things but it can't replace a human.
I've found that just asking "did you make that up again?" after every response improves the quality of code Chat GPT produces. It seems to pick up fairly quickly on methods it just invented.
I dunno, it helped me with excel formulas quite a bit. I only had to use non ai sources multiple times to correct the errors the ai kept giving me, but it still set the ground work for standard forum users to fix.
Honestly, AI is super useful if what you need doesn't require much creativity. For example, if I want to know how to setup an eDiscovery case in Exchange Online then I can probably trust Copilot to tell me the correct answer.
If I need to write a block of code to check for XSS or CSRF, then no, AI is not going to be trustworthy.
If it's something that's been done and written about dozens of times before, an LLM will probably barf up something resembling it.
Nah, unfortunately it's been fed stack overflow. So instead of having a wealth of alternative solutions to a problem it just tells you your question is a duplicate and refuses to help.
I think it has potential and will get better. My concern is the private sector wants to use it now like its fully matured and its just not. Got to work out the energy usage to.
Linus Torvalds out here describing capitalism.
I disagree on the only 10%. But I see why he believes so. If you've been into similar topics for a while, like machine learning, AI doesn't objectively do so much more. Then you have countless examples of AI providing wrong informations. However this understates how often real people give wrong informations and how often we have to work with them and fix the issues, be it in our head of by trial and error. People really need to practice awareness to notice how often we correct errors automatically without thinking or being aware. Brains are amazing.
AI like LLMs are so new, we neither have peaked in quality nor used them long enough to understand the quirks. For a lot of people it will be like learning to drive a bike, learn swimming or learn inner peace and patient with the annoying coworker. Some won't make it.
Also understanding AI takes time which I suspect most busy people don't have. And I don't even mean understanding the technical side, I mean learning on using them correctly. AI is a tool and to believe it solves all our problems now, is a bit utopic, yet it will become better and better by the day.
Language models are improving so quickly that we're starting to take their amazing abilities for granted. Tasks that used to seem really difficult for computers, like understanding complex language or writing creatively, now feel normal and expected. We're getting used to this advanced technology and forgetting how impressive it truly is.
Damn he is old
He's 54. Middle-aged, sure, but old?
That photo makes him look like he is in his 70s.
Anyway 54 is still kind of old assuming 65 is the goal retirement age.
65 is when you are "told" you should retire. Not when you should/must retire. My Mom didn't retire until she was 70, and that was only because she was tired of taking recertification tests. By the way, she still complains there aren't enough hours in the day. My Dad "retired" at 75, but is still writing and such. Myself, I'm a GenX'er, and I'm planning on working (remotely) until I lose my mind and can no longer think coherently. I like to work, and I'm hoping I can do it into my 90+ years. I'm hoping that when I retire I won't notice it, and won't live much longer. Fingers crossed for several more decades of enjoyable work.
Conversely I have seen a lot of folks go down physically and mentally in their 60's. Its sorta luck of the draw if your the relatively robust to 90 vs the heart attack in your 50's
yeah middle age used to be considered about 35. fifty plus middle age is wack.