Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 379 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#211

Post by cheschire »

rsynnott wrote: post #200
auctoritas wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more fatigued by people denying the obvious that ChatGPT and similar models are revolutionary. People have been fantasizing about the dawn of AI for almost a century and none managed to predict the rampant denialism of the past few months. I suppose it makes sense though. Denial is the default response when we face threats to our identity and sense of self worth.

> ChatGPT and similar models are revolutionary For _what purpose_, tho? It's a good party trick, but its tendency to be confidently wrong makes using it for anything important a bit fraught.

If you're the type of person that struggles to ramp up production of a knowledge product, but has great success in improving a knowledge product through an iterative review process, then these generative pre-trained transformers are fantastic tools in your toolbox.

That's about the only purpose I've found so far, but it seems a big one?

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#212

Post by rsynnott »

krona wrote: post #16
rythmshifter wrote: post #3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle

I think Machine learning already went through the trough of disillusion around 2016-2018 in computer vision and around 2018-2020 for voice assistants. I think we're now past that and people can see that tools like ChatGPT are powerful enough to be applied in many pre existing contexts and industries in unpredictable and inventive ways without huge amounts of manual configuration, which makes it more exciting.

ML/AI is a repeat offender (for that matter, so is The Almighty Blockchain; it managed a few hype cycles under slightly different identities; blockchain, ICO, NFTs, and so on). Remember in the late 90s when Microsoft and Apple both appeared fully convinced that voice would be the primary interface with computers imminently? There was also a large brief chat agent bubble a few years back.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#214

Post by kriops »

rsynnott wrote: post #200
auctoritas wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more fatigued by people denying the obvious that ChatGPT and similar models are revolutionary. People have been fantasizing about the dawn of AI for almost a century and none managed to predict the rampant denialism of the past few months. I suppose it makes sense though. Denial is the default response when we face threats to our identity and sense of self worth.

> ChatGPT and similar models are revolutionary For _what purpose_, tho? It's a good party trick, but its tendency to be confidently wrong makes using it for anything important a bit fraught.

If you work at a computer, it will increase your productivity. Revolutionary is not the word I'd use, but finding use cases isn't hard.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#215

Post by rsynnott »

deafpolygon wrote: post #6

ChatGPT is great, but it's being hyped up so much right now. We've got AI bros coming in the scene trying to sell everybody a new product. Before the crypto craze, it was big data. I probably missed something in between.

It was actually briefly ML again; there was a chat agent VC funding bubble before the main crypto VC funding bubble.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#216

Post by traceroute66 »

pixl97 wrote: post #193
traceroute66 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "I" in AI is just complete bullshit and I can't understand why so many people are in a awe I agree. And the worst thing is that the bullshit hype comes round every decade or so, and people run around like headless chickens insisting that "this time its different", and "this time its the REAL THING". As you say, first(ish) there was ELIZA. Than this that and everything else. Then Autonomy and all that dot-com er…

Man, if this were 1800 you'd be stating that man would never fly and the horse would never be supplanted by the engine. I honestly don't believe you have any scientific or rational reasoning for the point you are attempting to make in your post, because if you were you'd be stating that animal intelligence is magical.

> Man, if this were 1800 you'd be stating that man would never fly and the horse would never be supplanted by the engine.

I'm sorry, what sort of bullshit argument is that ?

Flight and engines are both natural evolution using natural physics and mechanics.

Artificial Intelligence is nothing but a square-peg-round-hole, when you have a sledgehammer everything looks like a nut scenario.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#217

Post by matwood »

LastTrain wrote: post #167
jug wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this take. It has many clear applications already and LLM's are still only in their infancy. I both criticize and use ChatGPT at work. It has flaws and it has advantages. That it's bullshit or "ELIZA" is a short-sighted view that overvalues the importance of AGI and misses what we're already getting. But yes indeed, there are many, many AI products launched during this era of rapid progress. Even kind of shodd…

How are you using it at work?

I've used it to proof emails for grammar, and it's done ok.

I'll also throw random programming questions into it, and it's been hit and miss. SO is probably still faster, and I like seeing the discussion. The problem with chatGPT right now is it gives an answer like it's certainty when it's often wrong.

I can see the benefits of this interaction model (basically summarizing all the things from a search into what feels like a person talking back), but I don't see change the world level hype at the moment.

I also wonder if LLMs will get worse over time through propagation error as content is generated by other LLMs.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#219

Post by alach11 »

LastTrain wrote: post #167
jug wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this take. It has many clear applications already and LLM's are still only in their infancy. I both criticize and use ChatGPT at work. It has flaws and it has advantages. That it's bullshit or "ELIZA" is a short-sighted view that overvalues the importance of AGI and misses what we're already getting. But yes indeed, there are many, many AI products launched during this era of rapid progress. Even kind of shodd…

How are you using it at work?

I’m not the person you replied to but I’ve been using OpenAI’s API a lot for work. Some examples:

- Embedding free text data on safety observations, clustering them together, using text completion to automatically label the clusters, and identifying trends

- Embedding free text data on equipment failures. Some of our equipment failures have been classified manually by humans into various categories. I use the embeddings to train a model to predict those categories for uncategorized failures.

- Analyzing employee development goals and locating common themes. Then using this to identify where there are gaps we can fill in training offerings.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#220

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

sfpotter wrote: post #151
dual_dingo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artifical means "not human" in this context for me, but I understand "Intelligence" as the abiltiy to actual reason about something based on things you learned and/or experienced, and these "AI" tools don't do this at all. But defining "intelligence" is a philosopical question that doesn't necessarily have one answer for everything and everyone.

Personally, I try to take a more inductive approach. We don’t know what intelligence is, but we assume it’s something we exhibit. We also clearly recognize other animals as possessing the same trait to varying degrees. Since we don’t know what it is, and since (I would argue) we can only convincingly claim that exists in other biological organisms without meeting a high burden of proof, to claim that it exists in an…

Intelligence is a capability not a mechanism, and therefore if you're able/willing to define what that capability is, there should be no problem measuring/gauging the intelligence of any system, biological or not. You don't need to look inside the black box - you only need to test if the black box has this capability.

Intelligence may be a fuzzily defined word in everyday usage, but I don't think it's the mystery you present it to be. Joe public may argue against any and all definitions of the word that they personally disagree with (maybe just dislike), but it's nonetheless quite easy to come up with a straightforward and reductive definition if you actually want to!

Post reply on HN