Making no mistakes is a much higher standard than that which we hold to ourselves. Why are people moving the goalposts of intelligence or usefulness behind perfection?
Technology up to the dawn of the AI slop era was indeed expected to be perfect. When it wasn’t, we fixed it so it would be.
Why should AI be exempt from this? Techbros have convinced you that it should be so that their favourite lines go up.
There’s literally nothing more to it. A hammer is useless if it only drives 50% of the nails you hit with it. Why the fuck should we expect anything less than triple or quad 9 accuracy from AI if its so god damned “intelligent”?
Bc when I use a calculator, I actually DO expect literal perfection. And when I use google search, I expect it to be “useful”. And when I find information in Wikipedia, I expect it to be somewhat authoritative, even if incomplete. And if I use automative driving features, I expect them not to completely take over the wheel and crash me into a brick wall… or to a little child in a crosswalk right in front of me.
People who drive drunk lose their privileges to drive anymore. Employees who screw up that often get fired. Doctors who dispense incorrect medical advice lose their ability to practice medicine, plus get exposed to lawsuits. Counselors who tell their patients to kill themselves… Anyway, people DO experience the consequences of their actions, like ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Whereas in contrast, AI is said that it is “going to be” great, not that it is great now. Fine, finish it and then we’ll talk. In the meantime, stop shoving it in front of my face.
If AI is like a human, it’s at best 2-year-old and at worst more like 6 months. It should not be “in charge”, e.g. of dispensing medical advice. But since it takes so much time to check its results for errors, it is literally slower and more painful to use it than to not use it (sometimes, often in fact).
You have a point somewhere buried in your mind, as revealed by the insightful first sentence, but your phrasing in the second sentence reads like sea-lioning and is not helping. Nobody is asking for “behind perfection” as that is literally mathematically impossible, and that is not what “moving the goalposts” means. It should not be enough to sound intelligent - we need to actually be such (same for AI as well).
And Google search has been spotty since the beginning.
And Wikipedia article quality … varies.
Like people, if you give AI a sufficiently complex problem, it won’t get it 100% right on the first pass. But, if you give it enough detail to distinguish an acceptable solution from an unacceptable one, it might get 80% of what you’re looking for on the first pass, boost that to 96% on the 2nd pass, 99% on the 3rd pass, and eventually what’s left is simple enough that it finally does get it 100% right.
Anybody who accepts the first thing AI tells them with today’s tech, is using it wrong.
Your “if” there is doing an awfully lot of the heavy lifting. Fwiw, I’m not talking special-purpose, custom-built LLMs - a large part of the problem is the lack of precision language uses to describe the concepts under discussion.
Both of these would be better called “cheating” than “AI”, but seeing as how AI both makes it easier and more to the point so many companies (such as Oracle) are literally pushing their programmers (those remaining anyway) to exclusively write programs using AI rather than by themselves, the very definition of “cheating” will need to be reexamined as a result.
In the examples also take note of how poor quality the LLM output is - e.g. regardless of whether the source is Grok or Claude or whatever, those therapy examples are not helpful in the slightest. Your counterargument might be that these are the “cheap” (aka free) AIs, but preemptively I will say in response: they still count as “AI”, especially in the context of the OP.
As far as “cheating” goes, ever since I got out of the game of paying a bunch of academics to judge and label me, I have been actively encouraged to “cheat” by the people who pay me money… that’s real life.
If you’re using a Ginsu knife to knead dough, you might not have optimal results. Claude is pretty good at code, since about 4-6 months ago. Grok? last time I asked Grok for anything it was the fastest LLM on the market, and the most non-sensical - usless trash.
Okay but Grok is still surely part of the “Anxiety around AI is growing rapidly in the US, research shows” phenomena, as Grok is one of the various AIs that people are aware of, and anxious about.
Your words read to me like you have kept yourself aware of the positive benefits of using AI - which many people on Lemmy including to some degree myself - have done far less of.
Making no mistakes is a much higher standard than that which we hold to ourselves. Why are people moving the goalposts of intelligence or usefulness behind perfection?
Technology up to the dawn of the AI slop era was indeed expected to be perfect. When it wasn’t, we fixed it so it would be.
Why should AI be exempt from this? Techbros have convinced you that it should be so that their favourite lines go up.
There’s literally nothing more to it. A hammer is useless if it only drives 50% of the nails you hit with it. Why the fuck should we expect anything less than triple or quad 9 accuracy from AI if its so god damned “intelligent”?
B-b-be-be-because shut up you, that’s why!
Won’t someone think of the poor shareholders?
(/s)
Bc when I use a calculator, I actually DO expect literal perfection. And when I use google search, I expect it to be “useful”. And when I find information in Wikipedia, I expect it to be somewhat authoritative, even if incomplete. And if I use automative driving features, I expect them not to completely take over the wheel and crash me into a brick wall… or to a little child in a crosswalk right in front of me.
People who drive drunk lose their privileges to drive anymore. Employees who screw up that often get fired. Doctors who dispense incorrect medical advice lose their ability to practice medicine, plus get exposed to lawsuits. Counselors who tell their patients to kill themselves… Anyway, people DO experience the consequences of their actions, like ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Whereas in contrast, AI is said that it is “going to be” great, not that it is great now. Fine, finish it and then we’ll talk. In the meantime, stop shoving it in front of my face.
If AI is like a human, it’s at best 2-year-old and at worst more like 6 months. It should not be “in charge”, e.g. of dispensing medical advice. But since it takes so much time to check its results for errors, it is literally slower and more painful to use it than to not use it (sometimes, often in fact).
You have a point somewhere buried in your mind, as revealed by the insightful first sentence, but your phrasing in the second sentence reads like sea-lioning and is not helping. Nobody is asking for “behind perfection” as that is literally mathematically impossible, and that is not what “moving the goalposts” means. It should not be enough to sound intelligent - we need to actually be such (same for AI as well).
And you have calulators.
And Google search has been spotty since the beginning.
And Wikipedia article quality … varies.
Like people, if you give AI a sufficiently complex problem, it won’t get it 100% right on the first pass. But, if you give it enough detail to distinguish an acceptable solution from an unacceptable one, it might get 80% of what you’re looking for on the first pass, boost that to 96% on the 2nd pass, 99% on the 3rd pass, and eventually what’s left is simple enough that it finally does get it 100% right.
Anybody who accepts the first thing AI tells them with today’s tech, is using it wrong.
Your “if” there is doing an awfully lot of the heavy lifting. Fwiw, I’m not talking special-purpose, custom-built LLMs - a large part of the problem is the lack of precision language uses to describe the concepts under discussion.
An example: https://lemmy.world/post/46390157
Another example: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/59584533
Both of these would be better called “cheating” than “AI”, but seeing as how AI both makes it easier and more to the point so many companies (such as Oracle) are literally pushing their programmers (those remaining anyway) to exclusively write programs using AI rather than by themselves, the very definition of “cheating” will need to be reexamined as a result.
In the examples also take note of how poor quality the LLM output is - e.g. regardless of whether the source is Grok or Claude or whatever, those therapy examples are not helpful in the slightest. Your counterargument might be that these are the “cheap” (aka free) AIs, but preemptively I will say in response: they still count as “AI”, especially in the context of the OP.
As far as “cheating” goes, ever since I got out of the game of paying a bunch of academics to judge and label me, I have been actively encouraged to “cheat” by the people who pay me money… that’s real life.
If you’re using a Ginsu knife to knead dough, you might not have optimal results. Claude is pretty good at code, since about 4-6 months ago. Grok? last time I asked Grok for anything it was the fastest LLM on the market, and the most non-sensical - usless trash.
(I did not downvote you btw)
Okay but Grok is still surely part of the “Anxiety around AI is growing rapidly in the US, research shows” phenomena, as Grok is one of the various AIs that people are aware of, and anxious about.
Your words read to me like you have kept yourself aware of the positive benefits of using AI - which many people on Lemmy including to some degree myself - have done far less of.
But there are some negatives as well…