I really appreciate your dismissive, arrogant tone. Your casual dismissing of my anecdote really added to how you provided even less substance to support your point.
But hey, it got you those “supporting the echo chamber by dunking on dissent” up votes, and that’s what we’re all here for, right?
Unpopular Opinion Incoming
I was assigned at work to evaluate a few LLMs for potential adoption, so I spent a solid week doing so.
Most of the “AI is broken and doesn’t work” on here is solid echo chamber cope. It’s more competent than several of my coworkers, though it’s thankfully not ready to replace knowledge workers as it requires a knowledge baseline to best direct it and evaluate its answers.
I still advised against using it for multiple reasons, including ethics, but much of Lemmy is playing make believe about the actual capabilities of LLMs.
It’s so they can repurpose that capacity for developing robots. It’s not good at all.
OpenAI told the BBC on Wednesday that it has discontinued Sora so that it can focus on other developments, such as robotics “that will help people solve real-world, physical tasks”.
I can’t help but think the current results were intentional. There are so many levels of command this had to go through that someone could have pulled the plug if it was just Diaper Don playing president again.
Damn, you sure showed them! Got any other galaxy brain zingers in there, Megamind?
Obviously. His hat is the wrong color.
Recent US election results don’t contradict the assertion.
In this thread: I don’t like this article and it’s stupid. I can’t tell you why, but it is, and anyone that disagrees with me is stupid too.
QED
But how else do people like this feel superior without having an under class to constantly shit on? By the merit of their own achievements? Hah!
deleted by creator
What you’re doing here is literally the definition of a straw man argument.
Oof. Way to embody your slur of choice.
The dude will want for nothing.
We’re hoping he won’t get to bugger children any longer.
That makes sense. I’m not an American but lived in the country for a number of years, so I understand some but not much of the culture.
I now understand and agree completely!
Let me show you an example. Let’s use easy ratios for easy numbers, so let’s say people vote Democrat to Republican 3:2.
If you have 100 people vote, you’ll end up with 60 democratic votes, 40 Republican.
If you have 200 people vote, you’ll have 120 Democrat votes, 80 Republican.
Increasing the number of total voters in this scenario will never change the outcome. 400 people? 240 to 160.
The only way getting more votes by mail will help Democrats win an election is if the ratio of Democrat to Republican voters is higher in mail-in voters compared to other population groups.
Or are you suggesting Democrats are less reliable voters, so getting them to vote increases the relative percentage of Democrat voters?
This explanation doesn’t make sense mathematically, though. If the ratio of Democrat to Republican voters is fairly consistent amongst groups, increasing the number of people in any given group that votes will result in that same ratio, just with greater numbers. Saying otherwise is like saying you can add 2% milk to 2% milk to eventually get back to whole milk
The only way voting by mail helps Democrats is if the vote by mail crowd has a heavier democratic skew.
Electrical engineering. My mentioned coworkers are competent but more junior in the field. We did a miniature internal study and found the best models provided accurate, relevant information on the first prompt about 90% of the time when asked to explain or verify concepts. The remainder consisted of hallucinations or misunderstood queries.
They struggled with questions that instead required complex problem, providing some mixture of appropriate solutions, overly complex but still functional solutions, and hallucinated shite.
I recommended that we do not move forward with adopting AI in any capacity. While it has some utility for basic information retrieval and fact checking, it still required someone with sufficient knowledge to be able to quickly evaluate the quality of its output. Helpful for someone who knows what they’re doing, dangerous 10% if the time for someone who does not. I also highlighted the ethical concerns, many of which my peers were unaware.