Technology

59594 readers

2971 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

572

Not even poor Notepad is safe from Microsoft's AI obsession (www.theregister.com)

submitted 10 months ago by boem to c/technology

197 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In all seriousness, if you show Bing Chat an equation, it will go through the steps and solve it clearly, it's actually really helpful. I really don't understand all this hate for AI just because it's AI. New technology is cool and useful, and I'd understand hating it because it's made by Microsoft, I try to use free software including free AI, but AI in itself is not bad or useless.

[–] Hyperlon 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Nah I don't hate AI but an AI cannot do math faster than the hardware designed to do it. It's like saying an emulator is faster than the bare hardware. The AI would have to find a revolutionary new way of solving the equation to make it faster than the hardware.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Of course, they're different types of things. You give hard equations with lots of x and y to a chatbot, or ask it about a method you don't understand, so it can explain it to you.

[–] pirat 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

AI would have to find a revolutionary new way of solving the equation to make it faster than the hardware.

This doesn't sound impossible. It reminded me of how AlphaGo, and how AlphaGo Zero became "the world's top player" of Go by letting it train itself by trial-and-error instead of by watching human players using existing Go strategies:

During the games, AlphaGo played several inventive winning moves. In game two, it played Move 37 — a move that had a 1 in 10,000 chance of being used.

Source: AlphaGo | Google DeepMind

AlphaGo and its successors use a Monte Carlo tree search algorithm to find its moves based on knowledge previously acquired by machine learning, specifically by an artificial neural network (a deep learning method) by extensive training, both from human and computer play. A neural network is trained to identify the best moves and the winning percentages of these moves. This neural network improves the strength of the tree search, resulting in stronger move selection in the next iteration.

Source: AlphaGo | Wikipedia

Training artificial intelligence (AI) without datasets derived from human experts has significant implications for the development of AI with superhuman skills because expert data is "often expensive, unreliable or simply unavailable." Demis Hassabis, the co-founder and CEO of DeepMind, said that AlphaGo Zero was so powerful because it was "no longer constrained by the limits of human knowledge".

Source: AlphaGo Zero | Wikipedia

Following this way of thinking, why let a human figure out how to solve equations most efficiently if the machine can find some way of calculating/computing that we had never even been able to think of?

Note, I'm investigating this with curiosity, and I'm no expert in the field.