• raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think the comparison is acceptable with maybe a terminology clarification in the footnotes, because “AI” is the false term under which this current bullshit is being marketed.

    And people who believe the core mechanism in large language models to be AI are so uneducated that they will probably neither understand the distinction to legitimate AI research, nor bother to read footnotes.

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Think all you want, statistical text prediction has nothing to do with AI. The “intelligent” algorithms are all in the pre- and postprocessing steps that make the output sound good enough to fool gullible people into assumong intelligence.

    • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 hours ago

      That’s exactly the thing. Those who understand such a footnote don’t need it, and those who might learn more from it are unlikely to understand it. The above commenters are simply being pedantic.

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Pedantic or AI bros ;) I find this new generation of gullible tech users scary. Recently saw someone voice their disappointment with Codeberg’s anto-vibecoding stance, and the person was describing themselves as “tech optimist”, which I believe is a great way to self-out as being extremely gullible.