this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
52 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
37799 readers
122 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Did he say that? I hope he didn't mean all kinds of AI. While "overhyped autocorrect on steroids" might be a funny way to describe sequence predictors / generators like transformer models, recurrent neural networks or some reinforcement learning type AIs, it's not so true for classificators, like the classic feed-forward network (which are part of the building blocks of transformers, btw), or convolutional neural networks, or unsupervised learning methods like clustering algorithms or principal component analysis. Then there are evolutionary algorithms and there are reasoning AIs like bayesan nets and so much much much more different kinds of ML/AI models and algorithms.
It would just show a vast lack of understanding if someone would judge an entire discipline that simply.
Copying isn't theft. There is no "theft".
It's just a problem with the whole copyright laws not being fit for purpose.
After all, all art is theft.
There is literally no "artificial intelligence" in any of this. It would show a vast degree of BS, hype, and obfuscation to promote data, statistics, and other computations as "intelligence".
https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-artificial-intelligence/there-is-no-ai
You are literally wrong. Nice article, don't see how that's relevant though.
Could it be, that you don't know what "intelligence" is? And what falls under definitions of the "artificial" part in "artificial intelligence"? Maybe you do know, but have a different stance on this. It would be good to make those definitions clear before arguing about it further.
From my point of view, the aforementioned branches, are all important parts of the field of artificial intelligence.
Well of course if you redefine words all of the time then nothing is anything right.