791
Are you telling me they don't?
(lemmy.today)
Too spicy?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 May 2026
791 points (100.0% liked)
memes
21339 readers
1535 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Do you belive current iteration of AI has the potential to become superhuman? I think it's like trying to get to the moon by building a better ladder.
No, I think the overall concept isn't bad, but we're deep sea tube worms trying to do brain surgery.
We got surprising results my mimicking life. Possibly for the same reasons it works for life, but there's still a lot more to it. All our iterations now are just using programming and resources to make use of what we found to do some of our cognitive work for us.
The whole weighted model concept was a step in the right direction and some of it may actually be how life operates, but that alone (or even wrapped in the smartest code we can think of) isn't going to get us to AI.
LLMs in itself don't do much because they're inconsistent, they lack clarity and data structure. But, on the other hand, classical (deterministic) software has always been rigid, stiff, inflexible. I think it's like a human, the deterministic software is the skeleton (bones), the LLMs are the muscles.
Just like a muscle would not at all stand without a bone and would collapse immediately, so are LLMs extremely useless in themselves because they have no consistency. However, i think that if you combine classical software with LLMs, you can arrive at better results than in any other way. It's like adding a muscle and a bone together to make a functioning system.
I'm not sure I understand. Inconsistent input to a rigid program gives inconsistent output. Consistent input to an LLM gives inconsistent result.
I'm a programmer. Can you tell me the specification of what you want the rigid classical software to do?
LLMs are a dead end.
Their only value is showing how fucked up our society is.
Suddenly and very publicly copyrights only matter if you're poor, electricity is wasted on the poor, water is not for the poor... it's always been like this, but the LLM bandwagon really showcased all of that in one shiny package.
The only good thing could be gathering public knowledge into a single space, but they don't even do that.
So it's all net negative in my eyes.
I respectfully disagree with the dead end part of your argument. A dead end would be if they provided no value.
While the environmental and social downsides are massive negatives on the tech, it is actually doing something.
Past iterations are completely useless, but more recent iterations show us a more polished side to LLMs that actually do enhance how we do some things.
Is it worth it? My gut says no, but its both too late and too early to call it. (late in the environmental and societal impact, too early in the tech iteration)
As far as the "dead end" argument goes, I have to say that's a hard disagree. Humanity is filled with technological advances that "stand on the shoulders of giants" and improve on previous techs. Even if LLMs themselves don't prove to be the thing that we've been promised by the people driving it, it is taking us one step closer to AGI (whether that's a good goal or not, that's still up for debate)
From here on, I think there's still quite a bit these models can improve, and I hope a lot of that improvement goes into making it more energy efficient, more water efficient in turn.
If by a dead end you mean that we can't reach an AGI from an LLM, I think that's correct, however an LLM might help us figure out what is needed for an AGI.
If it was used in a research as a step? Perchance.
Pouring everything we have into it? Dumbest fucking decision of our lives.
We could have put all that effort into previous versions and could tweak them enough to gather perhaps slightly worse results, maybe even better, we will never know.
Making this shit more efficient is to me also dumb.
What in the fuck are we doing that requires this shit? It helps with coding? We can make better frameworks. Translations? We had those before, even TTS. Emails? Just use a template. The other side is not reading that slop anyway. So what exactly are we doing here?
On crab god you didn't actually just say that
Can you elaborate please?
you can't just say perchance
You didn’t actually say what you think LLM’s are enhancing. Just that you feel that they are. Honestly I think that’s the biggest part, they’re big shiny things that look like they’re doing a lot. But they actually aren’t. LLMs are chatbots and they will never be anything more than just chatbots.
LLMs are not chat bots, they do natural language generation AKA: they can produce human readble text, they can also parse text; As of now, they take an input and follow patterns to guess what the output should be, it is really useful to be fair, they help in translation (see Deepl, a very good translator), they can take data and make it more readble to humans, summarize text*, parse text and data structures ex: i can give a JSON file to an LLM so i can get back a TOML file, document hard to read code etc etc
*but i'd argue that it's rarely useful, you will hardly have to summarize a text for yourself because you usually need to know any detail in it but i can see someone needing a summary once
Summarizing and finding codeblocks. Fucking A+.
So much so, that it's pretty much 100% necessary in software engineering now. And I hate it that I'm forced to use something that I know is so detrimental in other aspects.
Definitely worth setting the world on fire to power.
I’ve been a software developer for over 15 years, I’ve never used one. It’s not necessary at all.
And your 15 years are superior to mine because?....
No but if you don't try, you won't find where the Goblins are hiding.
Dont know, dont care, dont want it
Regardless, if someone's trying to get to the moon so they can enslave us all and rule over us from their moon fortress, I don't care if all they've got is a really long ladder, I'm breaking the ladder.
No, the tech ran into diminishing returns. That's been studied. In the end you're adding another datacenter just to get 1% better output.
I don't know what you mean by current iteration but what I do know is that general-purpose LLMs can already beat the very best of human intelligence some of the time (recent examples). So it won't take very long for a few more breakthroughs to be made which will enable general-purpose AIs (LLMs, other neural networks, or something else entirely) to beat human intelligence most of the time, and then 90% of the time, then 99.9999% of the time. AI is already doing a lot of the coding to make AI and it could discover better alternatives to LLMs.
You seem to be at odds not only with artificial intelligence.
Much like you, AI is incapable of understanding anything, they just regurgitate what they hear.
AI aren't intelligent, they're stochastic parrots that can process words as math to generate a facsimile of intelligence to make the ignorant think it's smart.
The thing is that neural networks in general (and LLM specifically) aren't creative. It can learn from input and gets a lot more input than a human, that's why it is better and faster in standardized tests (which are more often than not part of the input) and maybe can combine different things but it wouldn't ever have a genuine idea and much less a will of its own or a consciousness
Oh no.
You're basically promoting AI companies by saying their products are powerful and not garbage. This is their false narrative, repackaged in meme format.
Yes LLM's can beat humans in many tasks. But the jump from super spell checker to real AI is still huge.
It's like the 1960's where computers were beating chess players. (Not grand masters but they could beat regular people.) Because a computer could out think a regular human, people assumed that with more resources, we would have real AI in 25 year. That was Hal from 2001 Space Odyssey. It seemed very reasonable in 1968.