I really don't understand CEO's obsession with AI... is it because when they give LLMs a go they feel smart and finally capable of doing the things others could do but they were too dumb to engage with, like reasonably good writing or drawing pictures?
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
It's the ultimate yes man.
My guess?
anthropomorphism.
People are assigning thought and specifically intent to the replies that they get from ML and LLMs. They don't realize that the model is essentially just an unchecked auto correct that uses the entirety of everything posted on the public Internet as it's basis for what to reply to a prompt, the same way your phone tries to predict what word you want to say next based on what you've typed so far.
It's just a lot bigger and more complex than the auto correct and word prediction that your phone has.
But that's it. That's all it does. It's not thinking. It's not intelligent. It has no intent. It cannot cognitively understand what it's saying or doing.
Taking to "AI" is basically having the average of all Internet content as a basis for the reply. That means it's going to make shit up, tell you to eat glue, and generally fuck around.
But most people seem to assign it human-like traits of reasoning and intent, when there isn't any. CEOs included.
CEO = Marketing with a different title. Trust the words out of their mouths the same.
Well, given git is decentralized and self-hostable.....
I'm a professional developer and have tested AI tools extensively over the last few years as they develop. The economic implications of the advancements made over the last few months are simply impossible to ignore. The tools aren't perfect, and you certainly need to structure their use around their strengths and weaknesses, but assigned to the right tasks they can be 10% or less of the cost with better results. I've yet to have a project where I've used them and they didn't need an experienced engineer to jump in and research an obscure or complex bug, have a dumb architectural choice rejected, or verify if stuff actually works (they like reporting success when they shouldn't), but again the economics; the dev can be doing other stuff 90% of the time.
Don't get me wrong, on the current trajectory this tech would probably lead to deeply terrible socioeconomic outcomes, probably techno neofeudalism, but for an individual developer putting food on the table I don't see it as much of a choice. It's like the industrial revolution again, but for cognitive work.
I'm finding AI effectively automates entry level jobs and interns. The long term implications is very few will be able to enter the field. What do we do when all the experienced engineers retire? How will we shift our economy to work for everyone under this model?
Dear all governments:
Ban AI. Completely.
Love,
Intelligent people
Ban AI. Completely.
That is really short sighted. We all know it is not AI. The marketing is such bullshit.
But we also know that predictive algorithms can be useful. For instance: digitizing a property line, or identifying features in a lidar cloud, or discovering anomalies in blood cells. Then there are prediction tests and what if scenarios.
Seems like this is the same argument people had about computers in general. Ban all computers they said. Who knows maybe this guy in 1968 was right all along. and computers are the problem.
Dear intelligent people:
Fuck you
- DJT and the entirety of the Republican party
I see Microsoft don't need developers and those who work there are morons. That's how I read what Github CEO said.
Curious when the last time business insider quoted a labor leader without a CEO or capitalist shill quoted in the same article. A US private equity group Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR) acquired a majority share in the parent corp in 2020. They're also selling ads for development in the west bank under yad2 https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/germany-media-giant-axel-springer-advertises-israels-illegal-settlements-in-the-west-bank-through-its-classified-ads-website-yad2-incl-co-comment/
I already got out in March when github decided to close my account because I didn't want to involve my phone with my github account.
Codeberg has been a much more pleasant experience.
Damn, Microsoft rolling out the "Fuck You" hits lately. Allowing hate speech against Transgender people on LinkedIn, and now this shit on Github, not even mentioning the absolute bullshit their Desktop is these days.
Never been a better time to be eying alternatives. Fuck you Github CEO, fuck you LinkedIn, fuck you Microsoft, and fuck you Satya Nadella! 🖕🖕🖕🖕
I am embracing AI. For better or worse, it's here to stay. The issue with the current AI models is that they are over-hyped. It would just lead to a bubble burst like had happened with dotcom. The full capability of AI will probably improve in ten or fifteen years.
Is it, though? AI has been around to stay for 20 years. The difference really is that a bunch of tech bros are worshiping it while trade rags talk it up.
I'll agree that it's here to stay, but not so sure it's going to obviously improve. I have had access to various LLMs and while they are useful, they are very obviously limited and have kind of been at that level for a while now. Feel like they've largely gotten as "capable" as the strategy is going to get, and now the game is on to make some things friendlier for LLM consumption to get that capability more usefully available.
At least in the context of coding.
My for-hire work has been off GitHub for awhile now. My patience for VS Code is razor thin with the stupid features creeping in.
20 years ago I decided to make websites as a career and I’ve been loving it—up until the people who want to sell me tools I don’t want start convincing my bosses that I’m somehow less if I don’t get on board with the always-guessing error machine.
The git site has instructions on how to create your own git server in 30 mins.
It's very easy once you know it's literally just an SSH account.For personal projects or small teams is absolutely fine.
For open source there are lots of GitHub alternatives