|
Top-level
@FediThing @raganwald @nixCraft However, people also think a manual correction was made which I’m reasonably sure is not true. The tech, as oversold as it is, did get better. There are limited but useful reasoning capabilities, it is not just a “stochastic parrot” as the early versions absolutely were etc. IMO some technologists won’t keep up with this field because they wrote it off (for good reason) and am not arguing in favor of a business case, but we will be dealing with it for years. 3 comments
@moirearty @FediThing @nixCraft Tons of useful applications for ANI today, just as Newton and Macintosh 128K had use cases. @moirearty @FediThing @nixCraft What we know is that there is a way to report errors, and they do use the error reports to guide workers who train the model. There is also the possibility that the model itself has improved in a way that corrects this error without needing humans to focus training on it. Either way, this seems like a product from a company that is asking the world to beta-test it in production, and simultaneously, it’s a product where we cannot have a “complete test suite.” |
Gregory's Server
@FediThing @raganwald @nixCraft from a product standpoint I am in full agreement and think these companies should be rightly criticized.
From a Computer Science point of view, I believe some of the smartest folks are falling into the trap of “the thing I looked at previously was horrible so I’ve written it of entirely” and will be dogmatic about it to the detriment of their own field.
There is an area between “AGI” (which is bs until breakthroughs tbd) and where we are now that will be useful.