Asklemmy

44345 readers

566 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What is the legitimate use-case for generative AI? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

86 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I promise this question is asked in good faith. I do not currently see the point of generative AI and I want to understand why there's hype. There are ethical concerns but we'll ignore ethics for the question.

In creative works like writing or art, it feels soulless and poor quality. In programming at best it's a shortcut to avoid deeper learning, at worst it spits out garbage code that you spend more time debugging than if you had just written it by yourself.

When I see AI ads directed towards individuals the selling point is convenience. But I would feel robbed of the human experience using AI in place of human interaction.

So what's the point of it all?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

AI saves time. There are few use cases for which AI is qualitatively better, perhaps none at all, but there are a great many use cases for which it is much quicker and even at times more efficient.

I'm sure the efficiency argument is one that could be debated, but it makes sense to me in this way: for production-level outputs AI is rarely good enough, but creates really useful efficiency for rapid, imperfect prototyping. If you have 8 different UX ideas for your app which you'd like to test, then you could rapidly build prototype interfaces with AI. Likely once you've picked the best one you'll rewrite it from scratch to make sure it's robust, but without AI then building the other 7 would use up too many man-hours to make it worthwhile.

I'm sure others will put forward legitimate arguments about how AI will inevitably creep into production environments etc, but logistically then speed and efficiency are undeniably helpful use cases.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago

As some witty folks have put it, LLMs can't give you anything truly, interestingly new when all they're capable of is some weighted average of what's already there. And I'll be clear in saying I hate with the force of a tsunami the way AI is being shoved at us by desperate CEOs, and how it's being used to kill labor, destroy copyright law, increase income inequality, destroy the environment, and increase the power of huge corporations headed by assholes like Altman and Musk. But AI is getting pretty good at that weighted-average-of-what's-out-there, and a lot of the work done in several industries can benefit from that. For me, one of the great perversities or tragedies of AI is that it could be a targeted, useful tool but, instead, it's a hammer to further erode freedom. Even the coders, editors, advertisers, educators, etc. using it to do their jobs are participating in a short-term selloff of their profession to their CEOs, shareholders, etc. at the expense of large numbers of their colleagues or potential colleagues who will now never get jobs.

It's like if someone invented the wheel and Sam Altman immediately patented it and sold it to Raytheon.