I literally said one message earlier that my phone predates the outbreak of degenerative AI. I got it in 2021. If that’s “hilariously old” to you, so be it. It works (unlike degenerative AI).
The only bit of marketing terminology that has multiple high profile university research labs dedicated to it since the 50s.
The intelligence being referred to in AI is not the same thing.
Now ask yourself this, Sparky. Why was it called “Artificial Intelligence”? If it was, and I quote:
… comparing the abstract notion of a triangle to a rabbit.
I’ll give you a little clue: “artificial intelligence” gets more research grants than does any of these:
string of fancy-schmancy if/then statements
brain-damaged linear classifier
string of fancy-schmancy if/then statements disguised as a flowchart
curve fitting through brain-damaged linear classifier
precious, fussy line-drawer
shallow pattern matcher but hey at least it eats all the available hardware (phase I)
scoreboard-directed brute force button masher
“what if we ran the shallow pattern matcher backwards” but hey, at least it eats more than all the available hardware (phase II)
Yeah, so your phone is definitely using the modern iteration of generative AI for the features you’re defending. By “hilariously old” I meant more along the lines of “2014”. It is exactly what I was talking about when I was talking about smartphone AI features.
It kinda feels like your problem with modern AI is less the ethical issues and more the results you get from it, with the way that you’re defending it in the use case you like by saying it’s a different type.
As for your odd attack on an academic field: none of those things existed when the departments were founded. Those were all the names for the grants they proposed that led to them creating those things.
Why do you have a hard time accepting that maybe a term has different meanings in different contexts, and using that as the basis for your criticism is shallow compared to any of the other incredibly valid reasons to criticize how it’s built, supported, marketed, used or advertised?
Phone was released in 2021, meaning the software in it was made long before that. ChatGPT was pissed onto the world in 2022. Obviously exactly the same technology used.
… You know literally nothing about the technology if you can only conceive of chatgpt as the baseline, or if you think that it started in 2022.
Chatgpt is based on GPT, the first version of which was released in 2018 and based on work done by Google from the early 2010s through their publicized works in 2017.
If you’re so annoyed, why do you keep responding? I think you’re just defensive about the AI tools that you like and want them to be somehow different from the ones you don’t.
I literally said one message earlier that my phone predates the outbreak of degenerative AI. I got it in 2021. If that’s “hilariously old” to you, so be it. It works (unlike degenerative AI).
Now ask yourself this, Sparky. Why was it called “Artificial Intelligence”? If it was, and I quote:
I’ll give you a little clue: “artificial intelligence” gets more research grants than does any of these:
Yeah, so your phone is definitely using the modern iteration of generative AI for the features you’re defending. By “hilariously old” I meant more along the lines of “2014”. It is exactly what I was talking about when I was talking about smartphone AI features.
It kinda feels like your problem with modern AI is less the ethical issues and more the results you get from it, with the way that you’re defending it in the use case you like by saying it’s a different type.
As for your odd attack on an academic field: none of those things existed when the departments were founded. Those were all the names for the grants they proposed that led to them creating those things.
Why do you have a hard time accepting that maybe a term has different meanings in different contexts, and using that as the basis for your criticism is shallow compared to any of the other incredibly valid reasons to criticize how it’s built, supported, marketed, used or advertised?
Phone was released in 2021, meaning the software in it was made long before that. ChatGPT was pissed onto the world in 2022. Obviously exactly the same technology used.
Fucking Hell you’re an annoying twat.
… You know literally nothing about the technology if you can only conceive of chatgpt as the baseline, or if you think that it started in 2022.
Chatgpt is based on GPT, the first version of which was released in 2018 and based on work done by Google from the early 2010s through their publicized works in 2017.
If you’re so annoyed, why do you keep responding? I think you’re just defensive about the AI tools that you like and want them to be somehow different from the ones you don’t.