301–310 of 343 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I'm arguing talking to a passenger is not something you should be doing either. You are in control of something deadly, not a video game or toy - act like it.
This seems unnecessarily snarky and way off topic, not to mention a bit silly. I've piloted much, much larger things professionally than a car, thanks for your concern though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t produce it in the same volumes then? Did you know that factories make less big-sized and small-sized shoes than average-sized ones? Because (surprise) buyers size distribution is not uniform. “We tried to make big shoes many times and it doesn’t sell well enough”. Oh, really. I guess I’ll just cut holes for my fingers then.
> fingers Lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lazy? Is it a moral failing not to be interested in playing the guitar? I have no interest in guitar music, so why should I "try hard"?
I think you’re missing the point. There are lots of people who could benefit massively from using AI. Who have no moral objection to it. But they just dismiss it so quickly because it doesn’t instantly, magically make beautiful things for them. Anyone who cannot get something useful done by AI - who does want to do that - is lazy. It’s like saying in the 19th century - oh this electricity isn’t really useful for anyt…
This might be the central point of the conflict. I believe there are a few people who can benefit a great deal. And I think lots of people could probably benefit a little. But I don't think lots of people could benefit massively. It just doesn't work that well.
My opinion is that most of the real uses of AI (like ML has always been) will be largely hidden things that are LLM based but not screaming at your face "AI". Particularly once the bubble pops and money stops being shoved into things just sticking an LLM in a pretty package with little to no value. Some of the things coming in iOS like notification summaries and similar features are big examples. It's clearly LLM bas…
Exactly. Ask customers "do you want AI in your phone?" and their response will probably be "meh", as shown in the article. But ask "do you want notification summaries, a better camera in low light, Siri to be able to look up more things, searchable photos, etc?" - and they absolutely will.
Normies hate the AI hypetrain bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of that sounds like the boring low-hanging life fruit that gets trotted out in videos by companies like Apple and Google as being "revolutionary." It's boring. It's staged. It's the easy stuff. It's well-off 20-somethings solving non-problems for other well-off 20-somethings. Wake me up when I can say things like… Hey, Google, are my custom license plates ready for pick up at the tax office? Hey, Siri, ask my doc…
I see your point, but it's hilarious that I can ask AI "Write a python program that takes an URL parameter, connects over http to that URL, interprets the response as a CSV file and prints a sum of integers in the second column. Use argparse for command line parsing" - pure science fiction a few years ago - and you call this a "boring low-hanging fruit". Truly we humans get used to the good stuff quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Everyday AI" hasn't even been built yet tbh. Where is my assistant that notices my flight has been delayed and reschedules my appointments and lets my contacts know?
I think your example highlights why this kind of "everyday AI" would be nearly impossible. If my phone automatically rescheduled my appointments and notified my contacts, without my explicit direction, I would be pissed as all hell. There are some "confirmation" notifications that could assist here ("We noticed your flight is delayed - would you like to reschedule these appointments?"), but even then, I'd say the maj…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Ask customers "do you want AI in your phone?" and their response will probably be "meh", as shown in the article. But ask "do you want notification summaries, a better camera in low light, Siri to be able to look up more things, searchable photos, etc?" - and they absolutely will.
Lol no one i know wants any of the things you mentioned. Normies hate the AI hypetrain bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it’s not real intelligence Hence the predicated “artificial”, and hence the downvotes you are currently receiving. Your message is largely, if not entirely, a strawman.
None of these exhibit any accepted definitions of intelligence markers. The intelligence isn’t artificial, it doesn’t exist is my point. If you apply the commonly accepted definitions of what is considered display of intelligent behavior. One aspect of which is the ability to adapt to new circumstances that you haven’t experienced before. There has been considerable success in programming computers to draw inferences…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds a little like crypto although there are actual use cases for AI. Just not as many as investors think.
There are lots and lots of use cases for good AI. Those LLMs we have around just aren't that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you trust AI, something that regularly makes stuff up, to be able to accurately determine that?
I trust a defective AI a lot more than I trust Fox News ;-) Now, more seriously, it'd need to put together a coherent argument and back it up with reputable sources, as just citing sources is very ineffective. The article I cited gives more details on possible approaches to that.