jj4211

joined 3 years ago
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 18 minutes ago

I have a family member addicted to these (well, not Chinese...). It's pretty much all 100% slop, the voices, the animation, the script. My head hurts just seeing how it cuts every 5 seconds when I casually see it. The voices are so horribly soulless. The writing is inane and tortuously paced.

But people eat it up. Similar to (and large audience overlap) with people who toss massive money at shitty mobile games.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 21 minutes ago

It’s worse than a human for most things since it doesn’t know truth from lie and will confidently say both as if they’re fact

It works for most executives and sales folks.

Baseless confidence is the recipe for business success, which is why they love these AI chatbots.

Bigger problem for the business leaders is how sycophantic they want to be to the user. If an insurance company used it for claims, it might actually approve a claim, and that would be unforgivable for them.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 26 minutes ago

It's not even that it isn't 'ready for prime time', largely to the extent it works, it works with not so crazy requirements.

The problem is that they don't settle for what it is, they try to overextend it. In software development for example, in the cases where it works at all, you are 95% of the possible successes within 3 or 4 iterations. Problem is they demand that extra 5% which takes an order of magnitude more. Note that '100%' here is the max success possible with AI, not 100% success in general, that number varies greatly with context. So it might be in a certain scenario more like going from 19% AI curated to 20% AI curated, at huge incremental expense.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 32 minutes ago

That's what is wild about it. At any given point in time, the model is wholly consumed only with the very next token. Maybe that token is a running narrative of 'reasoning' or directly in the output, either way, the AI does not have anything to model anything beyond the very next token. It doesn't have a destination in mind and is just finding the words to get there, it's building it up word by word. The overall 'meaning' is an emergent property of just picking the very next token and seeing what happens.

Honestly, it's shocking it works as well as it does. More shockingly, there are AI enthusiasts that argue that's how the human brain works, which I can't imagine someone going through life with every thought rooted in building it up word by word.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 110 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

I had this happen to me once.

A woman asked me what was wrong with some technical thing and I explain that everything is just on crack and that's why it didn't work.

A bit offended, she declared she could handle a more technical explanation than that.

My response: "Well I can't"

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

He used what was available at the time. For the original trilogy, that was practical effects.

The prequel trilogy was a bit more... Dodgy thanks to eagerly embraced CGI that wasn't fully baked yet.

People famously critiqued the reworked original trilogy due to various dubious creative tweaks. Like waking on Jabba and Jabba just having a funny reaction instead of how you would expect him to react.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

The bad news for them is that AI is terrible at getting it 'right' the first time, so they have to do things over and over again guessing until it works. So the AI-heavy user pretty much has to just let the commands run to get any benefit since otherwise it's spending 95% of its time waiting on user to approve commands. Further, it's likely commands the user doesn't understand, because they are asking AI to do it in the first place frequently because they don't know themselves.

I'm with you, but as a result other people proclaim to be 'better' AI users largely because they trust the AI. Their stuff is crap and once in a while one of them blows themselves up, but in the short term they are getting praise from management.

Man I can't wait for the bubble to pop and management no longer being hyped for the sake of hype over it.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Congratulations, though a lot of folks are certainly not in that boat.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I will say that at least right now in my area, renting is actually a bit lower than the expected mortgage payment for comparable housing. However, that advantage would shift after 2-3 years as rent goes up but the mortgage would have stayed the same.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

It mostly just means higher property tax.

Now there are opportunities to get better interest rates by taking a loan out on your house, but that's depressing. It is, however, a common thing for older people who can't live on their retirement benefits otherwise.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Now the key question is did it drop below the price the owner would have been paying? Assuming the owner had it for at least 3 or 4 years, the rate drop was probably still not below their loan payments based on the purchase price.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

If the housing market goes into the shitter…

The owner probably still comes out ahead, no matter what.

Think of the 2008 housing crash. Must have sucked to be paying a fixed mortgage when the market went down. Except the person bought the house in 2004 and was paying the same mortgage they were then, and that's still less than typical rent after a crash calmed things down a bit.

You don't pay the mortgage of the house as it would sell right now, you pay the mortgage based on the purchase price that over years almost certainly trends lower. So as the landlord prices according to current market, the owner costs are largely based on the prices from years ago (except property taxes and insurance).

That's of course assuming you have a mortgage at all, and ignoring the fact that the mortgage goes away entirely at some point.

One thing I will say where renting wins hands down is if you are going to only be there a couple of years. You probably would have needed the mortgage, the property value wouldn't have increased by that much, and the loan origination fees, interest, and various other closing costs means you likely would lose money selling it that soon. The renter may be no worse off financially, but they are no better off then either. Except they can just leave and not worry about finding a replacement.

The boomers aren’t getting any younger, as more of them die, more houses go onto the market

Problem being that many of those houses suck. They are likely to be where there's no housing shortage already, because no one is interested in living there. They tend to be old, and not charmingly over a hundred years old but still standing; like 50 years old with questions of asbestos and polybutylene; with dubious insulation at its best and likely decayed a bit. Terribly in need of maintenance with busted HVAC, rodent destroyed ductwork, dangerous wiring, and moldy crawlspace. Cracked foundations and sagging structures suggesting the wrong storm could just ruin it. They also tend to be relatively tiny compared to houses built in the last couple of decades. I had a boomer relative die, and what did their children manage to get for the house, after months and months on the market? $60k. We were shocked but that was actually a bit higher than houses in their area went for.

view more: next ›