• bthest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Data Centers are like that 1897 synthesizer. Sure, it works, but at what cost? It clearly isn’t ready for prime time. Go back to the drawing board, tweak the problems, including regulations, and maybe in a couple of decades, we take another run at the new and improved version.

    The issue with AI is not a technical or development problem. It’s not even a regulation problem. It’s a capitalism problem. Infinite growth will still be as unscalable in a hundred years as it is now no matter how good and mature the tech is.

    • iocase@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 hours ago

      There are also hard mathematical limits stalling AI growth. Frontier models haven’t improved in like a year despite being fed money by basically the entire global economy. Diminishing returns on steroids basically. They’re already at the limit of what they can make, and going further gives a much smaller improvement in the model, and now I hear there might not be enough human written material on the internet to train them.

      It also looks like hallucinations are inherent to LLMs and you can’t get rid of them. It’s a side effect of the model. What commercial applications are there then, if you can’t guarantee the output? 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 also looks like prompt injection isn’t something you can fully guard against either.

      What’s the value proposition when you can’t trust the output and the model might give a massive refund or discount to a customer and the courts rule the AI speaks on behalf of your company?

      • nightlily@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        40 minutes ago

        I feel like calling „hallucinations“ a side effect isn’t really describing the issue properly. They’re not a side effect, nor are they hallucinations. It implied that there’s somehow something that distinguishes „correct“ output from „incorrect“. There isn’t, it’s all just output. The output resembling actual factual reality is statistical chance.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours 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.

        • iocase@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          If we just vaporize the future of everyone under 60 we can make our auto correct engine 3% less likely to lie out of its ass 🤡