• GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I literally quoted the word for that exact reason. It just gets really tiring when you talk about AIs and someone always has to make this point. We all know they don’t think or understand in the same way we do. No one gains anything by it being pointed out constantly.

    • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You said “they literally do analyze text” when that is not, literally, what they do.

      And no, we don’t “all know” that. Lay persons have no way of knowing whether AI products currently in use have any capacity for genuine understanding and reasoning, other than the fact that the promotional material uses words like “understanding”, “reasoning”, “thought process”, and people talking about it use the same words. The language we choose to use is important!

      • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        No it’s not. It’s pedantic and arguing semantics. It is essentially useless and a waste of everyone’s time.

        It applies a statistical model and returns an analysis.

        I’ve never heard anyone argue when you say they used a computer to analyse it.

        It’s just the same AI bad bullshit and it’s tiring in every single thread about them.

        • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          41 minutes ago

          LLMs arent “bad” (ignoring, of course, the massive content theft necessary to train them), but they are being wildly misused.

          “Analysis” is precisely one of those misuses. Grand Theft Autocomplete can’t even count, ask it how many 'e’s are in “elephant” and you’ll get an answer anywhere from 1 to 3.

          This is because they do not read or understand, they produce strings of tokens based on a statistical likelihood of what comes next. If prompted for an analysis they’ll output something that looks like an analysis, but to determine whether it is accurate or not a human has to do the work.

        • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I never made any “AI bad” arguments (in fact, I said that they may be incredibly well suited to this) I just argued for the correct use of words and you hallucinated.