- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Nevertheless, AI Isn’t Going Away
Citation needed.
what exactly is the rush?
In ginormous letters written across the sky, this
The takeaway is that people, and especially executives, with personal positive AI experiences are not necessarily well positioned to decide on behalf of their organization whether AI has been a success. No matter how good it feels on a personal level. The same applies to people who use ChatGPT individually for work: it may feel great to have AI write and summarize reports for you, but is the organization actually becoming better as a result? That may not be your concern personally, but it certainly is the concern of management. I’ll return to that later.
An enormous problem is that in most organizations, people no longer evaluate whether AI is actually successful, or even can be. After all, it’s “the future.” AI is indeed here to stay, but it would still be nice to think carefully about what we should actually do with it. Or at the very least, define beforehand what you expect it to achieve and measure whether it actually does. Because “it felt good” simply isn’t enough. More on that later.
This article conflates the disdain for corporate entities shoving LLMs everywhere with the underlying mathematics that drives their machine learning algorithms, and labels everything as AI without a lens of criticality.
He might have done so on purpose because the intended audience is already doing the same. First save them from driving off the cliff, then explain the difference between AI and ML …
I assume this might be the case because otherwise the article seems very well put together and it is difficult to imagine the author isn’t aware of the difference. I admire how the author managed to remain calm and diplomatic in the face of the current psychosis.
He might have done so on purpose because the intended audience is already doing the same.
He is not only an open source contributor and entrepreneur, but also has learned how to communicate such matters to a non-technical audience. An incredibly valuable capability for the open source community.
It’s important to differentiate because they’re rankly two seperate topics - where the authors sole intent is to shill out LLMs. The only time he reference’s ML is while speaking of the Chemistry Nobel, with a personal blog tailored to technical people. So…. Disingenuous.
Does it really? He does not omit to mention that generative AI might be more useful in the future, and AI algorithms have been used successfully.
Yes.
Some people like to dismiss AI as nonsense. “Fancy autocomplete.” “A stochastic parrot.” Here’s a counterexample from biology, a field I happen to know quite well:
LLMs are fancy autocomplete. He then has a counter example of actually useful AI that has beeen around for decades and isn’t what people who criticize AI are talking about because corporate LLMs have coopted ‘AI’ in their branding.
