Yeah, I read the entire comment and the key word was "anything", which as you just admitted was in fact hyperbole. As I said it was.
It's actually not overkill, because the way it responds (even for simple requests) can be tailored to help you understand things better. I've thrown everything at from simple stuff to complex stuff, and it does a really good job 90% of the time.
I didn't think you've thought it through to it's logical conclusion, and your example shows a demeaning attitude towards what AI can currently be used for. When you reduce it to what you view as ridiculous uses, you become lacking in the facts.
To say you've never gotten a fully correct result on anything has to be hyperbole. These things are tested. We know their hallucination rate, and it's not 100%.
I have used them in a large variety of ways, from general knowledge seeking to specific knowledge seeking, writing code, generating audio, images, and video. I use it most days, if not essentially every day. What examples would you like me to provide? Tell me and I will provide them.
I disagree with your take. I've found it extremely helpful in my life. I find using it and learning with it to be an enriching experience. I find following it's development and seeing it grow to be exciting. I see the possibilities of all the positive things it could do for the future of humanity.
I don't think a 10 year old could explain subatomic particles and the fundamental forces of the universe to me. I don't think they could refresh my memory of how to do geometry to help my son with his homework. I don't think a 10 year old could write a program for me to keep track of all the ebooks I have saved to my hard drive.
It's fairly obvious what's happening here. A bunch of people complaining about that newfangled thing they don't understand or see the full potential of, just like for every new technology that has ever emerged. The automobile would never take off. Humans would never fly. TV was a fad. The Internet wouldn't flourish. Rinse and repeat.
So these companies are against what you call draconian, but you also disagree with these companies? Everyone here is so fucking short sighted, it's insane to me.
The billionaires are the ones with the resources to develop this tech. We could nationalize it, but then people would complain about that too for different reasons.
Well, then we should see their want to change copyright in this way as a good thing. People complain when YouTubers get copyright struck even if their content is fair use or transformative of something else, but then suddenly become all about copyright when AI is mentioned.
The toothpaste is out of the tube. We can either develop it here and outpace our international and ideological competitors, or we can stifle ourselves and fall behind.
What's more annoying? That people have the ability to generate content with AI, or that everyone on lemmy constantly complains about it?
You're banging your heads against walls over and over. Stop. Shut up.
People complain about AI possibly being unreliable, then actively root for things that are designed to make them unreliable.
Yeah, I read the entire comment and the key word was "anything", which as you just admitted was in fact hyperbole. As I said it was.
It's actually not overkill, because the way it responds (even for simple requests) can be tailored to help you understand things better. I've thrown everything at from simple stuff to complex stuff, and it does a really good job 90% of the time.
LLMs are an implementation on the way to AGI.
I just know where the future is headed. Gotta be realistic about it.
They are making investments in green energy for their data center usage.
Our current economic model is insufficient to handle advancement in technology.
I have never had issues finding out information about file formats, or finding conversion tools for them.
The AI is not the problem in this case. The economic model is. It is not an economic model suitable for the advancement of technology.
I didn't think you've thought it through to it's logical conclusion, and your example shows a demeaning attitude towards what AI can currently be used for. When you reduce it to what you view as ridiculous uses, you become lacking in the facts.
For example, the US and China are international and ideological competitors.
To say you've never gotten a fully correct result on anything has to be hyperbole. These things are tested. We know their hallucination rate, and it's not 100%.
I have used them in a large variety of ways, from general knowledge seeking to specific knowledge seeking, writing code, generating audio, images, and video. I use it most days, if not essentially every day. What examples would you like me to provide? Tell me and I will provide them.
Do you realize these companies are now making bigger investments into green energy?
This was always going to happen with the advancement of technology. It's inevitable so long as humanity survives long enough.
Like what?
I think the exemption would be necessary to keep up with other nations who aren't and will never be beholden to such laws.
I disagree with your take. I've found it extremely helpful in my life. I find using it and learning with it to be an enriching experience. I find following it's development and seeing it grow to be exciting. I see the possibilities of all the positive things it could do for the future of humanity.
I don't think a 10 year old could explain subatomic particles and the fundamental forces of the universe to me. I don't think they could refresh my memory of how to do geometry to help my son with his homework. I don't think a 10 year old could write a program for me to keep track of all the ebooks I have saved to my hard drive.
It's fairly obvious what's happening here. A bunch of people complaining about that newfangled thing they don't understand or see the full potential of, just like for every new technology that has ever emerged. The automobile would never take off. Humans would never fly. TV was a fad. The Internet wouldn't flourish. Rinse and repeat.
Why?
So these companies are against what you call draconian, but you also disagree with these companies? Everyone here is so fucking short sighted, it's insane to me.
You sound like an old man yelling about the TV. LLMs are NOT unhelpful. You'd know this if you actually used them.
The billionaires are the ones with the resources to develop this tech. We could nationalize it, but then people would complain about that too for different reasons.
Well, then we should see their want to change copyright in this way as a good thing. People complain when YouTubers get copyright struck even if their content is fair use or transformative of something else, but then suddenly become all about copyright when AI is mentioned.
The toothpaste is out of the tube. We can either develop it here and outpace our international and ideological competitors, or we can stifle ourselves and fall behind.
The future comes whether you want it to or not.
I don't think you've thought that out to its logical conclusion.