Naatan @ Naatan @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

6

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm saying most of the time people are correctly complaining about the over-promising that's happening around AIs. Now here's an example of a CEO acknowledging the limitations, and yes; perhaps still over-promising on some degree. But the fact that we're seeing actual acknowledgement of the limitations is a positive thing. Change doesn't happen overnight, but this is a step in the right direction.

I say all this as someone with a strong distaste of modern google. I actively avoid their services as much as reasonably possible. I've tried their AI and found it to be more trouble than it's worth (what the hell is that control panel). But I can still recognize a positive change when I see one, my distaste of the company doesn't change that.

I think @Microw@lemm.ee has the right idea on how to handle this type of issue. Hopefully they will improve the messaging around this, because I'm getting really tired of explaining to people how what we have is not true AI.

Honestly though this is nothing new for Google, they've been providing answers and web results with false information since their inception. You as a user will always need to do some vetting, Google is never going to be able to give you fully accurate information. They're just sending you to places that may contain more information on the topic you're searching for. Or at least, that's how you should use them.

I think you nailed it. That's exactly why I want more of this type of conversation. Before we can innovate we have to acknowledge the limitations of the technology.

That's fair, but that doesn't appear to be the rationale by most commenters here. I think your point of view is much more constructive and opens up some interesting discussion topics rather than circle jerking over "google CEO bad".

I think the reason Google didn't release their AI before OpenAI did is precisely for this type of issue. OpenAI is now forcing their hand, because often it's not about the best product that wins, but rather the one that got to market first. I feel like what we're seeing now is less about these companies trying to release a product that they strongly believe has user value, but rather it's about these companies creating some sort of foothold such that by the time they figure out what the actual product is they still have some capacity to sell it.

I seriously wonder how the industry would look if OpenAI had not played their hand so soon. Obviously the technology would've arrived regardless, but perhaps the packaging would've been different enough that the miss-understanding around the technology wouldn't be so widespread.

Going back to my original point, it feels like most commenters here are still miss-understanding the technology, because there isn't anything to fix. Making LLMs smarter is impossible, it's inherently "dumb".

Good lord what is wrong with the people in this thread. The guy is literally owning up to the hard limitations of LLMs. I'm not a fan of him or Google either, but hey kudos for being honest this once. The entire industry would be better off if we didn't treat LLMs like something they're not. More of this please!

Just because students are at school from 9 to 5 doesn't mean every single teacher has to be in front of a class from 9 to 5.