• jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I think everyone in the universe is aware of how LLMs work by now, you don’t need to explain it to someone just because they think LLMs are more useful than you do.

    IDK what you mean by glazing but if by “glaze” you mean “understanding the potential threat of AI to society instead of hiding under a rock and pretending it’s as useless as a plastic radio,” then no, I won’t stop.

    • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      52 minutes ago

      It’s absolutely dangerous but it doesnt have to work even a little to do damage; hell, it already has. Your thing just makes it sound much more capable than it is. And it is not.

      Also, it’s not AI.

      Edit: and in a comment replying to this one, one of your fellow fanboys proved

      everyone knows how they work

      Wrong

          • jsomae@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Hitler liked to paint, doesn’t make painting wrong. The fact that big tech is pushing AI isn’t evidence against the utility of AI.

            That common parlance is to call machine learning “AI” these days doesn’t matter to me in the slightest. Do you have a definition of “intelligence”? Do you object when pathfinding is called AI? Or STRIPS? Or bots in a video game? Dare I say it, the main difference between those AIs and LLMs is their generality – so why not just call it GAI at this point tbh. This is a question of semantics so it really doesn’t matter to the deeper question. Doesn’t matter if you call it AI or not, LLMs work the same way either way.