this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
288 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37727 readers
615 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As soon as Apple announced its plans to inject generative AI into the iPhone, it was as good as official: The technology is now all but unavoidable. Large language models will soon lurk on most of the world’s smartphones, generating images and text in messaging and email apps. AI has already colonized web search, appearing in Google and Bing. OpenAI, the $80 billion start-up that has partnered with Apple and Microsoft, feels ubiquitous; the auto-generated products of its ChatGPTs and DALL-Es are everywhere. And for a growing number of consumers, that’s a problem.

Rarely has a technology risen—or been forced—into prominence amid such controversy and consumer anxiety. Certainly, some Americans are excited about AI, though a majority said in a recent survey, for instance, that they are concerned AI will increase unemployment; in another, three out of four said they believe it will be abused to interfere with the upcoming presidential election. And many AI products have failed to impress. The launch of Google’s “AI Overview” was a disaster; the search giant’s new bot cheerfully told users to add glue to pizza and that potentially poisonous mushrooms were safe to eat. Meanwhile, OpenAI has been mired in scandal, incensing former employees with a controversial nondisclosure agreement and allegedly ripping off one of the world’s most famous actors for a voice-assistant product. Thus far, much of the resistance to the spread of AI has come from watchdog groups, concerned citizens, and creators worried about their livelihood. Now a consumer backlash to the technology has begun to unfold as well—so much so that a market has sprung up to capitalize on it.


Obligatory "fuck 99.9999% of all AI use-cases, the people who make them, and the techbros that push them."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 7 points 5 months ago (10 children)

Except those things didn't really solve any problems. Well, dotcom did, but that actually changed our society.

AI isn't vaporware. A lot of it is premature (so maybe overblown right now) or just lies, but ChatGPT is 18 months old and look where it is. The core goal of AI is replacing human effort, which IS a problem wealthy people would very much like to solve and has a real monetary benefit whenever they can. It's not going to just go away.

[–] PeteBauxigeg@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago (7 children)

ChatGPT didn't begin 18 months ago, the research that it originates from has been ongoing for years, how old is alexnet?

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

I'm referencing ChatGPT's initial benchmarks to its capabilities to today. Observable improvements have been made in less than two years. Even if you just want to track time from the development of modern LLM transformers (All You Need is Attention/BERT), it's still a short history with major gains (alexnet isn't really meaningfully related). These haven't been incremental changes on a slow and steady march to AI sometime in the scifi scale future.

[–] PeteBauxigeg@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

AlexNet is related, it was the first use of consumer gpus to train neutral networks no?

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, not even remotely. And that's kind of like citing "the first program to run on a CPU" as the start of development for any new algorithm.

[–] PeteBauxigeg@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As far as I can find out, there was only one use of GPUs prior to alexnet for CNN, and it certainty didn't have the impact alexnet had. Besides, running this stuff on GPUs not CPUs is a relevant technological breakthrough, imagine how slow chayGPT would be running on a CPU. And it's not at all as obvious as it seems, most weather forecasts still run on CPU clusters despite them being obvious targets for GPUs.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What? Alexnet wasn't a breakthrough in that it used GPUs, it was a breakthrough for its depth and performance on image recognition benchmarks.

We knew GPUs could speed up neural networks in 2004. And I'm not sure that was even the first.

[–] PeteBauxigeg@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Okay, so some of the advances that chatGPT uses (consumer GPUs for training) are even older? 😁

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 months ago

Why stop there? The digital computer was introduced in 1942 and methods for solving linear equations were developed in the 1600s.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)