As the AI market continues to balloon, experts are warning that its VC-driven rise is eerily similar to that of the dot com bubble.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      Essentially we have invented a calculator of sorts, and people have been convinced it’s a mathematician.

    • @linearchaos
      link
      English
      -11 year ago

      First, ai can’t be a tutor or teacher because it gets things wrong.

      Since the iteration we have that’s designed for general purpose language modeling and is trained widely on every piece of data in existence can’t do exactly one use case, you can’t conceive that it can ever be done with the technology? GTHO. It’s not like we’re going to say ChatGPT teach kids how LLM works, but some more stuctured program that uses something like chatGPT for communication. This is completely reasonable.

      that’s not profitable.

      A. It’s my opinion but I think you’re dead wrong and it’s easily profitable if not to ivy league standards it would certainly put community college out of business.

      B. Screw profit. Philanthropic investment throws a couple billion into a nonprofit run by someone who wants to see it happen.

      The private school class isn’t gonna go for it either,

      You think an Ivy League school is above selling a light model of their courseware when they don’t have to pay anyone to teach the classes, or grade the work? Check out Harvard University Edx. It’s not a stretch.

      t third problem which is that ai isn’t worried about precision or communicating clearly

      Ohh a secret third problem, that sounds fun. I’ll let you in on another secret, AI isn’t worried because it’s a very large complicated math program. It doesn’t worry about communicating clearly, the people who pile on layer upon layer of LLM to produce output do that. It doesn’t give a damn about anything, but the people who work on it do.

      You want clarity?

      Let’s have GTP4, here as it sits clear up your complaint about my post:

      "Here is a revised version of your text that sounds more educated:

      There are two primary issues with the notion of using artificial intelligence as a tutor or teacher. Firstly, artificial intelligence is not infallible and can make mistakes. Consistency and correctness are integral components of pedagogy, and artificial intelligence is not yet capable of achieving these standards. As such, it is not suitable for the role you have suggested.

      Secondly, even if artificial intelligence were capable of fulfilling this role (which it is not, due to technological limitations), it would not be a profitable endeavor. Replacing public school teachers with artificial intelligence would not align with the goals of those seeking to reform the public school system. The aim is to streamline the process from birth to the workplace, and an artificial intelligence nanny would not facilitate this.

      Furthermore, the private school class would not be interested in such a proposal. They are currently opposed to subjecting their children to such technology and are willing to pay for the best educators available. Precision mass-produced automation cannot compete with bespoke handcrafted goods.

      There is also a third issue to consider: artificial intelligence is not concerned with precision or clear communication. Instead, it focuses on what “feels” right in a given situation. Is this the type of teacher we want for any form of education?"

      or perhaps you’d like to have it communicate clearly to younger people

      "Sure, here is a revised version of the text written at a 5th-grade level:

      There are two big problems with using computers to teach kids. The first problem is that computers can make mistakes. Teachers need to be right all the time, and computers aren’t always right. So, they can’t do the job you want them to do.

      The second problem is that even if computers could do the job (they can’t, but let’s pretend), it wouldn’t make money. People who want to change schools don’t want to use computers to teach kids everything. They want to make it easier for kids to get jobs when they grow up. A computer nanny can’t do that.

      Rich kids who go to private schools wouldn’t like it either. Their parents pay a lot of money for the best teachers. They don’t want a computer nanny. You can’t sell something cheap and easy to make to someone who wants something special and handmade.

      There’s also a secret third problem. Computers don’t care about being right or explaining things clearly. They just do what they think is best at the moment. Is that the kind of teacher you want? For any kind of learning?"

      • Ragnell
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        This weekend my aunt got a room at a ery expensive motel, and was delighted by the fact that a robot delivered amenities to her room. And at breakfast we had an argument about whether or not it saved the hotel money to us the robot instead of a person.

        But the bottom line is that the robot was only in use at an extremely expensive hotel and is not commonly seen at cheap hotels. So the robot is a pretty expensive investment, even if it saves money in the long run.

        Public schools are NEVER going to make an investment as expensive as an AI teacher, it doesn’t matter how advanced the things get. Besides, their teachers are union. I will give you that rich private schools might try it.

        • @linearchaos
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          Single robot, single hotel = bad investment.

          Single platform teaching an unlimited number of users anywhere in the world for whatever price can provide the R&D and upkeep. Greed would make it expensive if it can, it doesn’t have to be.

        • @linearchaos
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          I’ve seen your post history, comical that you’d talk to me about tone.

        • @linearchaos
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          What do you want me to do here? Go through each line item where you called out something on a guess that’s inherently incorrect and try to find proper citations? Would you like me to take the things were you twisted what I said, and point out why it’s silly to do that?

          I could sit here for hours and disprove and anti-fallacy you, but in the end, you don’t really care you’ll just move the goal post. Your world view is AI is a gimmick and nothing that I present to you is going to change that. You’ll just cherry pick and contort what I say until it makes you feel good about AI. It’s a fools’ errand to try.

          Things are nowhere near as bad as you say they are. What I’m calling for is well withing the possible realm of the tech with natural iteration. I’m not giving you any more of my time. any further conversation will just go unread and blocked.