• coffee_with_creamEnglish
    2222·
    4 months ago

    It’s weird to me that people on Lemmy are so anti ML. If you aren’t impressed, you haven’t used it enough. “Oh it’s not 100% perfect,” well yeah who cares? You should partner it with a human to supervise it anyway. 1 human can supervise many ML partners

    • nandeEbisu@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      4 months ago

      In terms of practical commercial uses, these highly human in the loop systems are about where it is and there are practical applications and products build off of it. I think what was sold though is a much more of either a replacement of people or a significant jump in functionality.

      For example, there are products that will give you an AI summary of a structured or fairly uniform document like a generic press release, but there’s not really a good replacement for something to read backgrounds on 50 different companies and figure out which one you should invest in without a human basically doing all of that work themselves anyway just to check the work of the AI. The latter is what is being sold to make the enormous cost of hosting and training AI worth it.

    • smiletolerantly@awful.systemsEnglish
      9·
      4 months ago

      I was fully on board until, like, a year ago. But the more I used it, the more obviously it came undone.

      I initially felt like it could really help with programming. And it looked like it, too - when you fed it toy problems where you don’t really care about how the solution looks, as long as it’s somewhat OK. But once you start giving it constraints that stem from a real project, it just stops being useful. It ignores constraints (use this library, do not make additional queries, …), and when you point out its mistake and ask it to to better it goes “oh, sorry! Here, let me do the same thing again, with the same error!”.

      If you’re working in a less common language, it even dreams up non-existing syntax.

      Even the one thing it should be good at - plain old language - it sucks ass at. It’s become so easy to spot LLM garbage, just due to its style.

      Worse, asking it to proofread a text for spelling and grammar mistakes, but to explicitly do not change the wording or style, there’s about a 50/50 chance it will either

      • change your wording or style, or
      • point out errors that are not even in the original text in the first place!

      I could honestly go on and on, but what it boils down to is: it is able to string together words that make it sound like it knows what it is doing, but it is just that, a facade. And it looks like for more and more people, the spell is finally breaking.