Comment on What do you personally use AI for?

Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Zworf@beehaw.org ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The LLMs for text are also based on “theft”. They’re just much better at hiding it because they have a multitude more source material. Still, it does sometimes happen that they quote a source article verbatim.

  source

  • Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s a bit hard to explain sometimes to people who think that the AI really “thinks”

    If I had the patience, I’d try to explain the Chinese Room though experiment to the people that misunderstand AIs. But I don’t, so I usually just shut up 🙂

    source
  • onlinepersona@programming.dev ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Still, it does sometimes happen that they quote a source article verbatim.

    I’m hoping it’ll quote the license I put in my comments (should my text ever be included in the training set) and gets somebody in trouble. But yeah, transformed anything is difficult undo to see what the source material was, so commercial LLMs can mostly just get away with it.

    Anti Commercial-AI license

    source
• Zacryon@lemmy.wtf ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I totally agree with Linus Torvalds in that AIs are just overhyped autocorrects on steroids

  Did he say that? I hope he didn’t mean all kinds of AI. While “overhyped autocorrect on steroids” might be a funny way to describe sequence predictors / generators like transformer models, recurrent neural networks or some reinforcement learning type AIs, it’s not so true for classificators, like the classic feed-forward network (which are part of the building blocks of transformers, btw), or convolutional neural networks, or unsupervised learning methods like clustering algorithms or pricnipal component analysis. Then there are reasoning AIs like bayesan nets and so much much much more different kinds of ML/AI models and algorithms.

  It would just show a vast lack of understanding if someone would judge an entire discipline that simply.

  source

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There is literally no “artificial intelligence” in any of this. It would show a vast degree of BS and obfuscation to promote data, statistics, and other computations as “intelligence”.

    source

    • Zacryon@lemmy.wtf ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You are literally wrong. Nice article, don’t see how that’s relevant though.

      Could it be, that you don’t know what “intelligence” is? And what falls under definitions of the “artificial” part in “artificial intelligence”? Maybe you do know, but have a different stance on this. It would be good to make those definitions clear before arguing about it further.

      From my point of view, the aforementioned branches, are all important parts of the field of artificial intelligence.

      source
    • echodot@feddit.uk ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Well of course if you redefine words all of the time then nothing is anything right.

      source
  • darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Copying isn’t theft. There is no “theft”.

    source

    • echodot@feddit.uk ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It’s just a problem with the whole copyright laws not being fit for purpose.

      source