Technology

classic techbro overhype

Add new feature into everything without seperating and offering choice to opt out of it

Is there a black mirror episode for that? A technology, that automatically edits your memories to be inaccurate, but "better".

@9488fcea02a9 @ForgottenFlux I remember reading a whole article about how Samsung now just shoves a hi-res picture of the moon on top of pictures you take with the moon in so it looks like it takes impressive photos. Not sure if the scandal meant they removed that "feature" or not

99.999% accurate would be pretty useful. Theres plenty of misinformation without AI. Nothing and nobody will be perfect.

Trouble is they range from 0-95% accurate depending on the topic and given context while being very confident when they’re wrong.

I think it largely depends on what kind of AI we're talking about. iOS has had models that let you extract subjects from images for a while now, and that's pretty nifty. Affinity Photo recently got the same feature. Noise cancellation can also be quite useful.

As for LLMs? Fuck off, honestly. My company apparently pays for MS CoPilot, something I only discovered when the garbage popped up the other day. I wrote a few random sentences for it to fix, and the only thing it managed to consistently do was screw the entire text up. Maybe it doesn't handle Swedish? I don't know.

One of the examples I sent to a friend is as follows, but in Swedish;

Microsoft CoPilot is an incredibly poor product. It has a tendency to make up entirely new, nonsensical words, as well as completely mangle the grammar. I really don't understand why we pay for this. It's very disappointing.

And CoPilot was like "yeah, let me fix this for you!"

Microsoft CoPilot is a comedy show without a manuscript. It makes up new nonsense words as though were a word-juggler on circus, and the grammar becomes mang like a bulldzer over a lawn. Why do we pay for this? It is buy a ticket to a show where actosorgets their lines. Entredibly disappointing.

People love to make these claims.

Nothing is "100% accurate" to begin with. Humans spew constant FUD and outright malicious misinformation. Just do some googling for anything medical, for example.

So either we acknowledge that everything is already "sewage" and this changes nothing or we acknowledge that people already can find value from searching for answers to questions and they just need to apply critical thought toward whether I_Fucked_your_mom_416 on gamefaqs is a valid source or not.

Which gets to my big issue with most of the "AI Assistant" features. They don't source their information. I am all for not needing to remember the magic incantations to restrict my searches to a single site or use boolean operators when I can instead "ask jeeves" as it were. But I still want the citation of where information was pulled from so I can at least skim it.

We're not talking about an AI running a nuclear reactor, this article is about AI assistants on a personal phone. 0.001% failure rates for apps on your phone isn't that insane, and generally the only consequence of those failures would be you need to try a slightly different query. Tools like Alexa or Siri mishear user commands probably more than 0.001% of the time, and yet those tools have absolutely caught on for a significant amount of people.

The issue is that the failure rate of AI is high enough that you have to vet the outputs which typically requires about as much work as doing whatever you wanted the AI to do yourself, and using AI for creative things like art or videos is a fun novelty, but isn't something that you're doing regularly and so your phone trying to promote apps that you only want to use once in a blue moon is annoying. If AI were actually so useful you could query it with anything and 99.999% of the time get back exactly what you wanted, AI would absolutely become much more useful.

How could you ensure AI to privately sort your pictures, if the requests to analyze your sensitive imagery need to be made on a server? (that based its knowledge of disrespecting others copyright anyway, lol)

I don't think it's meant to be useful....for us, that is. Just another tool to control and brainwash people. I already see a segment of the population trust corporate AI as an authority figure in their lives. Now imagine kids growing up with AI and never knowing a world without. People who have memories of times before the internet is a good way to relate/empathize, at least I think so.

How could it not be this way? Algorithms trained people. They're trained to be fed info from the rich and never seek anything out on their own. I'm not really sure if the corps did it on purpose or not, at least at first. Just money pursuit until powerful realizations were made. I look at the declining quality of Google/Youtube search results. As if they're discouraging seeking out information on your own. Subtly pushing the path of least resistance back to the algorithm or now perhaps a potentially much more sinister "AI" LLM chatbot. Or I'm fucking crazy, you tell me.

Like, we say dead internet. Except...nothing is actually stopping us from ditching corporate internet websites and just go back to smaller privately owned or donation run forums.

Big part of why I'm happy to be here on the newfangled fediverse, even if it hasn't exploded in popularity at least it has like-minded people, or you wouldn't be here.

Check out debate boards. Full of morons using ChatGPT to speak for them and they'll both openly admit it and get mad at you for calling it dehumanizing and disrespectful.

/tinfoil hat

Edit to add more old man yells at clouds(ervers) detail, apologies. Kinda chewing through these complex ideas on the fly.

Profit potential. Think of AI as one big data collector to sell you shit. It is significantly better at learning things about you than any metadata or cookies ever could.

If you think of this AI push as "trying to make a better product" it will not make much sense. If you think of the AI push as "how do I collect more data on all my users and better directly influence their choices" it makes a lot more sense.

And what exactly is the difference between researching shit sources on plain internet and getting the same shit via an AI, except manually it takes 6 hours and with AI it takes 2 minutes?

People wouldn't shit on AI if it wasn't needlessly crammed down our throats.

That's useful AI that doesn't take billions of dollars to train, though. (it's also a great idea and I'd be down for it)

I feel like I'm in those years of You really want a 3d TV, right? Right? 3D is what you've been waiting for, right? all over again, but with a different technology.

It will be VR's turn again next.

I admit I'm really rooting for affordable, real-world, daily-use AR though.

The fact that I can't trust the AI message to be remotely factual makes that sort of use case pointless to me. If I grep and sift through docs, I'll have better comprehension of what I'm trying to figure out. With AI slop, I just end up having to hunt for what it messed up, without any context, wasting my time and patience.

I’m on my iPhone 12 since it came out in sept 2020 (I bought it on Halloween 2020 lol) and apart from battery health being 77%, I have NO reasons to upgrade and even then, I’ll change the battery when it gets to 70% and… that’s it.

Phones just aren’t exciting anymore. I used to watch so much phone reviews on YouTube and now they are all just.. the same. Folding phones aren’t that interesting for me. I saw that there is a new battery technology, but that’s like the only new fun feature I’m interested in.

Most performance upgrades aren’t used in the real world and AI suuuuucks