this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
497 points (86.9% liked)
Technology
59466 readers
4896 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why? It's a tool like any other, and we're unlikely to stop using it.
Right now there's a lot of hype because some tech that made a marked impact of consumers was developed, and that's likely to ease off a bit, but the actual AI and machine learning technology has been a thing for years before that hype, and will continue after the hype.
Much like voice driven digital assistants, it's unlikely to redefine how we interact with technology, but every other way I set a short timer has been obsoleted at this point, and I'm betting that auto complete having insight into what your writing will just be the norm going forward.
It's just a Chinese room dude, it doesn't actually do anything useful
The Chinese room argument doesn't have anything to do with usefulness. Its about whether or not a computer that passes the turing test is conscious. Besides, the argument is a ridiculous one to begin with. It assumes that if a subcomponent of a system (ie the human) lacks "understanding", then the system itself (the human + the room + the program) lacks understanding.
Anything else aside, I wouldn't be so critical of the thought experiment. It's from 1980 and was intended as an argument against the thought that symbolic manipulation is all that's required for a computer to have understanding of language.
It being a thought experiment that examines where understanding originates in a system that's been given serious reply and discussion for 43 years makes me feel like it's not ridiculous.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#LargPhilIssu
What?
At best you're arguing that because it's not conscious it's not useful, which.... No.
My car isn't conscious and it's perfectly useful.
A system that can analyze patterns and either identify instances of the pattern or extrapolate on the pattern is extremely useful. It's the "hard but boring" part of a lot of human endeavors.
We're gonna see it wane as a key marketing point at some point, but it's been in use for years and it's gonna keep being in use for a while.
I agree with most of what you're saying here, but just wanted to add that another really hard part of a lot of human endeavors is actual prediction, which none of these things (despite their names) actually do.
These technologies are fine for figuring out that you often buy avocados when you buy tortillas, but they were utter shit at predicting anything about, for instance, pandemic supply chains....and I think that's at least partially because they expect (given the input data and the techniques that drive them) the future to be very similar to the past. Which holds ok, until it very much doesn't anymore.
I’m sorry, they aren’t good at predicting?
My man, do you have any idea how modern meteorology works?
A ton of data gets dumped into a ton of different systems. That data gets analyzed against a bunch of different models to predict forecasts The median of al those models is essentially what makes it into the forecast on the news.
Well, I would disagree that they don't predict things. That's entirely what LLMs and such are.
Making predictions about global supply chains isn't the "hard but boring" type of problem I was talking about.
Circling a defect, putting log messages under the right label, or things like that is what it's suited for.
Nothing is good at predicting global supply chain issues. It's unreasonable to expect AI to be good at it when I is also shit at it.
They make probabilistic predictions. Which are ok if you're doing simple forecasting or bucketing based upon historical data, and correlates and all of that.
What they are crappier about is things that are somewhat intuitively obvious but can't be forecasted on the basis of historical trends. So, like new and emerging trends or things like panic buying behavior making it so the whole world is somehow out of TP for a time.
I'd argue that relying solely on "predictive analytics" and just in time supply chains aggravated a lot of issues during the big COVID crunches, and also makes your supply chain more brittle in general.
All predictions are probabilistic.
AI indeed isn't great at modeling complex or difficult to quantify phenomenon, but neither are people.
Our recent logistical issues are much more based on the frailty of just in time supplying than the methods we use to gauge demand. Most of those methods aren't what would typically be called AI, since the system isn't learning so much as it's drawing a line on a graph.
We didn't actually run out of toilet paper, people just thought we did and so would buy all of it if they saw it in the shelves. It's a relatively local good, so it didn't usually get caught up in the issues with shipping getting bogged down, it's just that people chose to override the model that said that stores should buy five trucks full of TP because it would fill their warehouse and they were worried they'd be stuck with the backlog.
Eh, not really. All math / model based predictions are probabilistic. There's other ways to make predictions, and not all of them are based on math, and they might be wrong more often than a probabilistic model, but they exist.
Sure, fair enough, but there are times where a computer model is missing obvious context, and it's those times that I think we have to pay attention to.
The current industry adoption patterns seem to veering pretty close to "the computer did that auto-layoff thing" from Idiocracy in my opinion.
You not having a job where you work at a level to see how useful AI is just means you don't have a terribly important job.
What an brain drained asshole take to have. But I've seen your name before in my replies and it makes sense that you'd have it.
AI is useful for filling out quarterly goal statements at my job, and boy are those terribly important... 😆