Comment by esperent

Comment by esperent 3 days ago

There's a weird attitude on this site towards AI: if it's for coding or science, people generally recognize AI tooling as effective, although imperfect, and rapidly improving.

But any suggestion of using AI for business and it seems like disdain and dismissal is the majority response.

Don't you think many areas of business - maybe not all areas, but a significant amount - will just as much benefit from AI tooling as software developers and scientists?

protocolture 3 days ago

I dont see it like that.

Its more like:

If its for things where I find AI useful I want the tool interoperable with my chosen AI.

If its for things where I dont find AI useful, please dont force it in anyway.

Reply View 0 replies

tensor 2 days ago

I use some gen-AI, but not Google's. This is very clearly a case of them not getting the gen-AI sales they want, so they are now simply forcing you to pay for it even if you won't use it. It's gross, and precisely the problem with "bundling."

Reply View 0 replies

mvdtnz 2 days ago

Well I'm not "this site" I'm just some guy but I've been absolutely consistent in my belief that not only are these LLMs not "AI" but they're nowhere near useful enough to justify the absolutely stupid amounts of money being burned for them.

Reply View 0 replies

Nullabillity 3 days ago

> There's a weird attitude on this site towards AI: if it's for coding or science, people generally recognize AI tooling as effective, although imperfect, and rapidly improving.

I suspect that this is more of a selection bias thing. AI is garbage everywhere, but "AI in tech" posts tend to be hopeless abysses that are not even worth engaging with at this point. Hence, only the hucksters and grifters remain in there.

Reply View 6 replies

redserk 3 days ago

This is the camp I'm in. I've given AI the "college try", I've tried using in my workflows, and I've found that there are some cases where it genuinely has helped. But there is far too much drivel and hype.
I want to hear more from the people who've embraced it for a year, found it's pitfalls and perks, and reflect on it. I'm tired of the treadmill of content from someone who signed up for OpenAI on a Monday, used it for a JIRA ticket on Tuesday, then rushed to belt out a blogpost about how their career is forever changed on Wednesday.

Reply View | 3 replies
- bombcar 3 days ago
  
  Maybe we need an AI to filter out the bland bullshit content created by AI.
  I swear every single post LinkedIn highlights to me is the same AI template.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  mrguyorama 2 days ago
  
  Why do you need an AI to help you delete your Linkedin account?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- esperent 3 days ago
  
  > But there is far too much drivel and hype.
  Absolutely, unarguably true, for this and every other tech boom.
  But it's not all drivel and hype. There's some genuinely useful tooling here. For businesses, document summarization, translation, and asking questions about a corpus of documents using natural language are a few. For coding, some level of improved auto complete up to complete code generation are use cases. For science, there's a ton of automated testing, pattern recognition, vision based recognition use cases. For 3d graphics, where I work, some version of Nerfs could revolutionize parts of the field (although it's too early to tell) while AI based upscaling, frame generation, and path tracing noise removal are already causing big shifts in gaming.
  Don't let the annoying drivel and hype blind you to the genuinely useful possibilities.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
tensor 2 days ago

Here are a list of AI use cases that I guess are "garbage" to you.
Detecting diseases. Creating drugs to cure or help with disease. Aiding astronomy. Understanding the genome. Scanning documents into text (OCR). Translation. Voice recognition. Detecting fraud. Spam filtering.
Are you willing to give up all of these? Given your attitude you probably should.

Reply View | 1 reply
- Nullabillity a day ago
  
  All of those are incredibly vague. I'm no astronomer, but I'd hazard a guess that it's "solving astronomy" about as well as it's "solving programming" or "solving mathematics". (That is, it isn't. Outside of a few grifters' imaginations, anyway.)
  But sure, let's talk about a few of the more egregious ones.
  > Scanning documents into text (OCR).
  Useless for old texts, since you still need to review the transcriptions (and the "smarter" the transcription engine is, the harder review becomes since the errors look more plausible).
  Useless for new texts, just type them in a readable format instead.
  > Translation.
  Heh.
  > Voice recognition.
  Useless. Do you really want more IVR menus?
  > Detecting fraud.
  Illegal unless you can explain your reasoning (tip: you can't, or you wouldn't be using "AI" in the first place).
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

[removed] 3 days ago

[deleted]

Reply View 0 replies

xdennis 2 days ago

There are two aspects you should consider: 1) Google's AI isn't as good. 2) people don't want an AI middleman for person-to-person communication.

People may dislike AI written code or AI "art", but using AI to talk to other people is just seen as dishonest. It's even worse when it's not all that good.

Reply View 0 replies