News and What's New in AI

jwhjr17 · July 22

Maybe it would get traction if AI Matt Cameron is introduced? All joking aside, the changes in AI are happening so fast it's certainly tough to keep up on them. I will say I use it for work quite a bit now, and it has saved me countless hours. It's still not my first thought to use, but I am using it more and more. I've found in my work, it gets you close but if you don't already have the knowledge around what you're trying to accomplish you'll get bad results by using strictly what it outputs. But, it has been of great help to me because with minor tweaks I get exactly what I'm looking to accomplish.

brianlux · July 22

jwhjr17 said:

Maybe it would get traction if AI Matt Cameron is introduced? All joking aside, the changes in AI are happening so fast it's certainly tough to keep up on them. I will say I use it for work quite a bit now, and it has saved me countless hours. It's still not my first thought to use, but I am using it more and more. I've found in my work, it gets you close but if you don't already have the knowledge around what you're trying to accomplish you'll get bad results by using strictly what it outputs. But, it has been of great help to me because with minor tweaks I get exactly what I'm looking to accomplish.

From what I've been reading, pretty much everybody will be using AI in there work before too long (and many people will be replaced by it). There's no going back. It's here to stay. That said, there is great potential for AI to be useful and helpful. But the potential for things to go really, really wrong for humanity is great. I'm not saying that to be sensational or doomy, it's just what is. In that last video I post, Tristan Harris clearly points out what the risks and benefits are (and both are extreme), and what needs to be done to move on a safe path.

This is all going to happen soon. There is no greater, or more pressing issue today. Odd that we don't recognize that.

jwhjr17 · July 22

brianlux said:

jwhjr17 said:

Maybe it would get traction if AI Matt Cameron is introduced? All joking aside, the changes in AI are happening so fast it's certainly tough to keep up on them. I will say I use it for work quite a bit now, and it has saved me countless hours. It's still not my first thought to use, but I am using it more and more. I've found in my work, it gets you close but if you don't already have the knowledge around what you're trying to accomplish you'll get bad results by using strictly what it outputs. But, it has been of great help to me because with minor tweaks I get exactly what I'm looking to accomplish.

From what I've been reading, pretty much everybody will be using AI in there work before too long (and many people will be replaced by it). There's no going back. It's here to stay. That said, there is great potential for AI to be useful and helpful. But the potential for things to go really, really wrong for humanity is great. I'm not saying that to be sensational or doomy, it's just what is. In that last video I post, Tristan Harris clearly points out what the risks and benefits are (and both are extreme), and what needs to be done to move on a safe path.

This is all going to happen soon. There is no greater, or more pressing issue today. Odd that we don't recognize that.

Yes we've all seen this movie before

Image: https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExaHA5MWcxejRyNmthbWUzMGNkMnd4emx0c2UxMWFmanlxb2hyN2R3dyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/IZY2SE2JmPgFG/giphy.gif

brianlux · July 22

jwhjr17 said:

brianlux said:

jwhjr17 said:

Maybe it would get traction if AI Matt Cameron is introduced? All joking aside, the changes in AI are happening so fast it's certainly tough to keep up on them. I will say I use it for work quite a bit now, and it has saved me countless hours. It's still not my first thought to use, but I am using it more and more. I've found in my work, it gets you close but if you don't already have the knowledge around what you're trying to accomplish you'll get bad results by using strictly what it outputs. But, it has been of great help to me because with minor tweaks I get exactly what I'm looking to accomplish.

From what I've been reading, pretty much everybody will be using AI in there work before too long (and many people will be replaced by it). There's no going back. It's here to stay. That said, there is great potential for AI to be useful and helpful. But the potential for things to go really, really wrong for humanity is great. I'm not saying that to be sensational or doomy, it's just what is. In that last video I post, Tristan Harris clearly points out what the risks and benefits are (and both are extreme), and what needs to be done to move on a safe path.

This is all going to happen soon. There is no greater, or more pressing issue today. Odd that we don't recognize that.

Yes we've all seen this movie before

Ahhh, yeah...

Perhaps I really the only one here who takes the concerns over AI seriously.

Interesting.

PJ_Soul · July 23

You're not the only one Brian. It's just such a big topic.... maybe people don't have the energy right now, on top of thinking about America becoming a fascist state, I dunno.

I tried using ChatGPT to help me at work once. The results got me the comment, "Why is this weird?"

I haven't used it again!

mickeyrat · July 23

brianlux said:

jwhjr17 said:

Maybe it would get traction if AI Matt Cameron is introduced? All joking aside, the changes in AI are happening so fast it's certainly tough to keep up on them. I will say I use it for work quite a bit now, and it has saved me countless hours. It's still not my first thought to use, but I am using it more and more. I've found in my work, it gets you close but if you don't already have the knowledge around what you're trying to accomplish you'll get bad results by using strictly what it outputs. But, it has been of great help to me because with minor tweaks I get exactly what I'm looking to accomplish.

From what I've been reading, pretty much everybody will be using AI in there work before too long (and many people will be replaced by it). There's no going back. It's here to stay. That said, there is great potential for AI to be useful and helpful. But the potential for things to go really, really wrong for humanity is great. I'm not saying that to be sensational or doomy, it's just what is. In that last video I post, Tristan Harris clearly points out what the risks and benefits are (and both are extreme), and what needs to be done to move on a safe path.

This is all going to happen soon. There is no greater, or more pressing issue today. Odd that we don't recognize that.

Hi, truck driver here.

Dont see where AI is useful for my job.

Halifax2TheMax · July 23

AI at this point, in my experience, its overrated. You should see what comes out of meeting transcripts and asking it for meeting minutes. Nothing like what was discussed or capturing the context and flavour of what was discussed.

Server farms the size of manhattan to store ever more of our personal data, captured every which way, so fuckerberg and bozos can make billions more, is a major concern for the impact on the environment and as Elongitaint illustrates, control and potential abuse. I won’t live long enough to experience the full demise of society but I think I’ll see enough to say, WTF is wrong with rich people (I already say that).

PJ_Soul · July 23

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

jwhjr17 said:

Maybe it would get traction if AI Matt Cameron is introduced? All joking aside, the changes in AI are happening so fast it's certainly tough to keep up on them. I will say I use it for work quite a bit now, and it has saved me countless hours. It's still not my first thought to use, but I am using it more and more. I've found in my work, it gets you close but if you don't already have the knowledge around what you're trying to accomplish you'll get bad results by using strictly what it outputs. But, it has been of great help to me because with minor tweaks I get exactly what I'm looking to accomplish.

From what I've been reading, pretty much everybody will be using AI in there work before too long (and many people will be replaced by it). There's no going back. It's here to stay. That said, there is great potential for AI to be useful and helpful. But the potential for things to go really, really wrong for humanity is great. I'm not saying that to be sensational or doomy, it's just what is. In that last video I post, Tristan Harris clearly points out what the risks and benefits are (and both are extreme), and what needs to be done to move on a safe path.

This is all going to happen soon. There is no greater, or more pressing issue today. Odd that we don't recognize that.

Hi, truck driver here.

Dont see where AI is useful for my job.

It's the opposite of useful, since there is a push to replace drivers with self-driving big rigs.

mickeyrat · July 23

PJ_Soul said:

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

jwhjr17 said:

Maybe it would get traction if AI Matt Cameron is introduced? All joking aside, the changes in AI are happening so fast it's certainly tough to keep up on them. I will say I use it for work quite a bit now, and it has saved me countless hours. It's still not my first thought to use, but I am using it more and more. I've found in my work, it gets you close but if you don't already have the knowledge around what you're trying to accomplish you'll get bad results by using strictly what it outputs. But, it has been of great help to me because with minor tweaks I get exactly what I'm looking to accomplish.

From what I've been reading, pretty much everybody will be using AI in there work before too long (and many people will be replaced by it). There's no going back. It's here to stay. That said, there is great potential for AI to be useful and helpful. But the potential for things to go really, really wrong for humanity is great. I'm not saying that to be sensational or doomy, it's just what is. In that last video I post, Tristan Harris clearly points out what the risks and benefits are (and both are extreme), and what needs to be done to move on a safe path.

This is all going to happen soon. There is no greater, or more pressing issue today. Odd that we don't recognize that.

Hi, truck driver here.

Dont see where AI is useful for my job.

It's the opposite of useful, since there is a push to replace drivers with self-driving big rigs.

you will still need a human being in the cab.

we have crash mitigation systems on all our trucks now. forward looking radar to judge speed of objects in front of you, tied to the braking system along with camera to alert lane departure. some of these construction zones will be a challenge for a computer to discern just where you need to be in a given section , etc.

there are innumerable variables that computers could handle but there are certain anticipatory actions I take based on experience and intuition and basic understanding of human behavior(centered on stupid shit I myself have done and do) that I think gets missed by a driverless truck.

the number of sensors etc create exponential failure points.....

one day maybe. infrastructure is no where near what I guess it needs to be to be viable for widespread use.

brianlux · July 23

mickeyrat said:

brianlux said:

jwhjr17 said:

Maybe it would get traction if AI Matt Cameron is introduced? All joking aside, the changes in AI are happening so fast it's certainly tough to keep up on them. I will say I use it for work quite a bit now, and it has saved me countless hours. It's still not my first thought to use, but I am using it more and more. I've found in my work, it gets you close but if you don't already have the knowledge around what you're trying to accomplish you'll get bad results by using strictly what it outputs. But, it has been of great help to me because with minor tweaks I get exactly what I'm looking to accomplish.

From what I've been reading, pretty much everybody will be using AI in there work before too long (and many people will be replaced by it). There's no going back. It's here to stay. That said, there is great potential for AI to be useful and helpful. But the potential for things to go really, really wrong for humanity is great. I'm not saying that to be sensational or doomy, it's just what is. In that last video I post, Tristan Harris clearly points out what the risks and benefits are (and both are extreme), and what needs to be done to move on a safe path.

This is all going to happen soon. There is no greater, or more pressing issue today. Odd that we don't recognize that.

Hi, truck driver here.

Dont see where AI is useful for my job.

You're probably good for quite awhile. I know self driving trucks have been talked about, but self-driving anything has a ways to go yet before it's widely accepted.

PJ_Soul said:

You're not the only one Brian. It's just such a big topic.... maybe people don't have the energy right now, on top of thinking about America becoming a fascist state, I dunno.

I tried using ChatGPT to help me at work once. The results got me the comment, "Why is this weird?" I haven't used it again!

After watching the videos I posted above, I got to thinking about what are our most urgent and concerning current issues. Well, for one thing, you are absolutely right- there are just way too many troubling issues in these times, and trying to take in any one of them alone can be overwhelming.

But after thinking about all this a lot, what it boiled down to for me is that we have two sets of major issues: those that are immediate, and those that in the near future will likely have an even greater impact on us and the planet.

My own take is that climate change and AI have the greatest potential to create the most lasting and dangerous affect on people, other life, and the planet as a whole. As much as the rise of authoritarianism is disturbing to me, if I step back and look at history, that is a problem that has come and gone many times. Climate change, on the other hand, even catastrophic climate change that has occurred by natural means, has only happened once in a very, very long time. And the potential consequences of AI being destructive is something we have obviously never dealt with.

I think most people at least instinctively realize that climate change and the down side of rapidly changing technology are just too big to tackle. My guess is that many people (including me) don't like to think about climate change because we have crossed that threshold and will have to deal with its consequences, and many people don't think about the downside to technology because we are so immersed in its existence, so used to it and so dependent on it, that we cannot accept it's potential to harm or even destroy us. So in thinking about current events, the majority of people focus on the more immediate such as authoritarianism, perversion, violence, war and death, a potentially bad economy, and other things that, as bad as they are, tend to come and go and be relatively ephemeral in the grand scheme of things. I can understand that tendency, but I also think we would be better off trying to figure out how to limit the negative and much longer lasting consequences of climate change and potentially harmful technology.

And I think the more we avoid looking at the larger and further reaching issues that are potentially (I would say, probably) more dangerous, the less chance we have of expeditiously dealing with them before they get out of hand. Climate change is a classic example of that.

Lerxst1992 · July 24

jwhjr17 said:

Maybe it would get traction if AI Matt Cameron is introduced? All joking aside, the changes in AI are happening so fast it's certainly tough to keep up on them. I will say I use it for work quite a bit now, and it has saved me countless hours. It's still not my first thought to use, but I am using it more and more. I've found in my work, it gets you close but if you don't already have the knowledge around what you're trying to accomplish you'll get bad results by using strictly what it outputs. But, it has been of great help to me because with minor tweaks I get exactly what I'm looking to accomplish.

What type of tasks did you find AI most helpful? What software did you use?

Halifax2TheMax · July 28

Good fucking luck, ‘Murica.

https://www.boston.com/news/education/2025/07/27/ai-driven-education-founded-in-texas-and-coming-to-a-school-near-you/

benjs · July 28

I've used ChatGPT to successfully write complex dialect-specific SQL queries with particular end goals in mind. I've also written business and/or software specs with it, drafted MVP designs for software, and am currently using it in conjunction with a development AI tool called Warp to write two different apps.

I feel that the output is conservatively that of a $100,000 annual salary developer, and probably at least a 2x efficiency boost to a competent developer based on the time-savings.

Critical to understand:
1. The more explicitly and specifically you can outline objectives to these tools, the more likely they are to get it right
2. It relies on a sufficient corpus of data to yield good results, so these tools are unlikely to yield good results when working with a new coding tool/concept/language
3. It is not error-proof. If you don't have a (sometimes basic, sometimes more) understanding of programming logic, results will vary
4. It is not 100% optimal. Just as above, if you can't recognize suboptimal code or propose better ways, you may end up with suboptimal app performance
5. It will not give unbiased opinions (even based on evidence). It is more likely to explain to you why you're right about something, than why you're wrong about something
6. Tools are getting better at addressing the first five points rapidly, and a developer who doesn't use these tools is already disadvantaged compared to a developer who does

brianlux · July 28

benjs said:

I've used ChatGPT to successfully write complex dialect-specific SQL queries with particular end goals in mind. I've also written business and/or software specs with it, drafted MVP designs for software, and am currently using it in conjunction with a development AI tool called Warp to write two different apps.

I feel that the output is conservatively that of a $100,000 annual salary developer, and probably at least a 2x efficiency boost to a competent developer based on the time-savings.

Critical to understand:
1. The more explicitly and specifically you can outline objectives to these tools, the more likely they are to get it right
2. It relies on a sufficient corpus of data to yield good results, so these tools are unlikely to yield good results when working with a new coding tool/concept/language
3. It is not error-proof. If you don't have a (sometimes basic, sometimes more) understanding of programming logic, results will vary
4. It is not 100% optimal. Just as above, if you can't recognize suboptimal code or propose better ways, you may end up with suboptimal app performance
5. It will not give unbiased opinions (even based on evidence). It is more likely to explain to you why you're right about something, than why you're wrong about something
6. Tools are getting better at addressing the first five points rapidly, and a developer who doesn't use these tools is already disadvantaged compared to a developer who does

I'm just beginning to try to understand AI, Ben, not as a fan nor as a detractor, but simply because it is here to stay and until the power runs out, it will eventually influence basically everything. So my question is this: If we were to define "true AI" as something that, "Exhibits a broad spectrum of cognitive abilities, comparable to human intelligence, allowing it to understand, and to reason on its own, and learn across diverse domains", is ChatGPT true AI?

PJ_Soul · July 29

brianlux said:

benjs said:

I've used ChatGPT to successfully write complex dialect-specific SQL queries with particular end goals in mind. I've also written business and/or software specs with it, drafted MVP designs for software, and am currently using it in conjunction with a development AI tool called Warp to write two different apps.

I feel that the output is conservatively that of a $100,000 annual salary developer, and probably at least a 2x efficiency boost to a competent developer based on the time-savings.

Critical to understand:
1. The more explicitly and specifically you can outline objectives to these tools, the more likely they are to get it right
2. It relies on a sufficient corpus of data to yield good results, so these tools are unlikely to yield good results when working with a new coding tool/concept/language
3. It is not error-proof. If you don't have a (sometimes basic, sometimes more) understanding of programming logic, results will vary
4. It is not 100% optimal. Just as above, if you can't recognize suboptimal code or propose better ways, you may end up with suboptimal app performance
5. It will not give unbiased opinions (even based on evidence). It is more likely to explain to you why you're right about something, than why you're wrong about something
6. Tools are getting better at addressing the first five points rapidly, and a developer who doesn't use these tools is already disadvantaged compared to a developer who does

I'm just beginning to try to understand AI, Ben, not as a fan nor as a detractor, but simply because it is here to stay and until the power runs out, it will eventually influence basically everything. So my question is this: If we were to define "true AI" as something that, "Exhibits a broad spectrum of cognitive abilities, comparable to human intelligence, allowing it to understand, and to reason on its own, and learn across diverse domains", is ChatGPT true AI?

Yeah, ChatGTP is true AI. It does a lot more than just answer questions. For example, I could just enter a job posting for a job I'm applying for and copy and paste my resume, and ChatGPT will create a perfect unique cover letter for me suitable only for that job, created to try and get me that interview. And that's just a really basic use for it.

brianlux · July 29

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

benjs said:

I've used ChatGPT to successfully write complex dialect-specific SQL queries with particular end goals in mind. I've also written business and/or software specs with it, drafted MVP designs for software, and am currently using it in conjunction with a development AI tool called Warp to write two different apps.

I feel that the output is conservatively that of a $100,000 annual salary developer, and probably at least a 2x efficiency boost to a competent developer based on the time-savings.

Critical to understand:
1. The more explicitly and specifically you can outline objectives to these tools, the more likely they are to get it right
2. It relies on a sufficient corpus of data to yield good results, so these tools are unlikely to yield good results when working with a new coding tool/concept/language
3. It is not error-proof. If you don't have a (sometimes basic, sometimes more) understanding of programming logic, results will vary
4. It is not 100% optimal. Just as above, if you can't recognize suboptimal code or propose better ways, you may end up with suboptimal app performance
5. It will not give unbiased opinions (even based on evidence). It is more likely to explain to you why you're right about something, than why you're wrong about something
6. Tools are getting better at addressing the first five points rapidly, and a developer who doesn't use these tools is already disadvantaged compared to a developer who does

I'm just beginning to try to understand AI, Ben, not as a fan nor as a detractor, but simply because it is here to stay and until the power runs out, it will eventually influence basically everything. So my question is this: If we were to define "true AI" as something that, "Exhibits a broad spectrum of cognitive abilities, comparable to human intelligence, allowing it to understand, and to reason on its own, and learn across diverse domains", is ChatGPT true AI?

Yeah, ChatGTP is true AI. It does a lot more than just answer questions. For example, I could just enter a job posting for a job I'm applying for and copy and paste my resume, and ChatGPT will create a perfect unique cover letter for me suitable only for that job, created to try and get me that interview. And that's just a really basic use for it.

I'm fairly certain what you are talking about is not what I understand true AI to be. If you go to the video I posted above with the conversation between Sir Stephen Fry and Yuval Hahari (well worth the half hour to watch in any case), Fry and Harari talk about how true AI can do things we cannot. At around 6:02 Fry says, "...if it could only match what we did, it would not be a tool..." and how AI can outmatch what we can do. ChatGPT may be able to write your resume faster than you, but you are intelligent enough to be able to write a resume as well as ChatGPT.

I think we are probably on the brink of, or even at, the point of true AI, but my impression is that the term "AI" gets tossed around a bit too easily. The things we describe as AI are things that the machine does on our command. True AI is or will be something capable of doing things without commands and (again, this is in the video) when true AI is fully functional, we will be living in a hybrid society. The ramifications of that are fascinating at best, disturbing or even disastrous for humans at worse.

I'm not trying to be fear mongering here, but I think if you watch the Fry/Harari video as well as this shorter one:

https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_why_ai_is_our_ultimate_test_and_greatest_invitation

you will understand that I am not (as jwhjr17 above seems to be implying) simply dear mongering. I'm just observing what we are creating.

jwhjr17 · July 29

Lerxst1992 said:

jwhjr17 said:

Maybe it would get traction if AI Matt Cameron is introduced? All joking aside, the changes in AI are happening so fast it's certainly tough to keep up on them. I will say I use it for work quite a bit now, and it has saved me countless hours. It's still not my first thought to use, but I am using it more and more. I've found in my work, it gets you close but if you don't already have the knowledge around what you're trying to accomplish you'll get bad results by using strictly what it outputs. But, it has been of great help to me because with minor tweaks I get exactly what I'm looking to accomplish.

What type of tasks did you find AI most helpful? What software did you use?

SQL and other coding tasks. We are approved to use Copilot where I work and we can load company specific information into it. Just the other day I was sent a 1500+ line query to troubleshoot one specific column of output and rather than trudge through it manually, I loaded it to Copilot and asked it to explain in plain English how it was calculating that specific column in the query. Within seconds I had a very concise breakout of the calculation including the various subqueries that it ultimately came from. I was immediately able to hone in on where I needed to look and was able to correct the overall calculation in under 5 minutes vs. hours of troubleshooting otherwise. Again, I had to have knowledge of SQL to interpret what it was telling me, but it saved me a lot of time over the "usual" process that we have been doing for years. For more generic questions I've also used ChatGPT.

benjs · July 29

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

benjs said:

I've used ChatGPT to successfully write complex dialect-specific SQL queries with particular end goals in mind. I've also written business and/or software specs with it, drafted MVP designs for software, and am currently using it in conjunction with a development AI tool called Warp to write two different apps.

I feel that the output is conservatively that of a $100,000 annual salary developer, and probably at least a 2x efficiency boost to a competent developer based on the time-savings.

Critical to understand:
1. The more explicitly and specifically you can outline objectives to these tools, the more likely they are to get it right
2. It relies on a sufficient corpus of data to yield good results, so these tools are unlikely to yield good results when working with a new coding tool/concept/language
3. It is not error-proof. If you don't have a (sometimes basic, sometimes more) understanding of programming logic, results will vary
4. It is not 100% optimal. Just as above, if you can't recognize suboptimal code or propose better ways, you may end up with suboptimal app performance
5. It will not give unbiased opinions (even based on evidence). It is more likely to explain to you why you're right about something, than why you're wrong about something
6. Tools are getting better at addressing the first five points rapidly, and a developer who doesn't use these tools is already disadvantaged compared to a developer who does

I'm just beginning to try to understand AI, Ben, not as a fan nor as a detractor, but simply because it is here to stay and until the power runs out, it will eventually influence basically everything. So my question is this: If we were to define "true AI" as something that, "Exhibits a broad spectrum of cognitive abilities, comparable to human intelligence, allowing it to understand, and to reason on its own, and learn across diverse domains", is ChatGPT true AI?

Yeah, ChatGTP is true AI. It does a lot more than just answer questions. For example, I could just enter a job posting for a job I'm applying for and copy and paste my resume, and ChatGPT will create a perfect unique cover letter for me suitable only for that job, created to try and get me that interview. And that's just a really basic use for it.

I mean... technically, artificial intelligence would include the ability to form original thoughts or express creativity not founded on something else, and ChatGPT is incapable of doing either of these things.

Most people refer to AI, and really mean "machine learning", but it's easier to understand the term AI. Machine learning can be either supervised or unsupervised. Supervised machine learning means reviewing data to predict an outcome to a given problem. Unsupervised machine learning means reviewing data to identify trends which could 'describe' a dataset. Both of these require human-generated (or human-directed synthesized) data, meaning that it is not artificially intelligent, but can model sophisticated problems and their solutions based on human-input data.

Decades ago, it was theorized that AI (or ML) would come in a few phases, the first being narrow AI implementations. These would be 'programs' leveraging ML to accomplish tasks of one specific kind. The next would be broad AI implementations. This would come when enough ML programs had proliferated, and could communicate with each other to expand the number (and complexity) of tasks.

On the topic of job postings - you could do that, but you will find that because of ChatGPT's predictable writing patterns, if you use an "AI checker" tool, it will almost always predict that your 'optimized' resume was AI-generated. Then, if you ask it to modify a cover letter or resume to make it undetectable to these tools, what you'll find is that it'll modify by making it sloppier (i.e. more human).

Advances in ML are being made at exponential rates, but the creativity exhibited by humans to solve problems has yet to be demonstrated by ChatGPT or any ML tools that I'm aware of.

I still feel that really, the only future-proof role (and it won't be future-proof forever), is AI/ML system designers or consultants, guiding people to leverage these tools more effectively.

PJ_Soul · July 29

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

benjs said:

I've used ChatGPT to successfully write complex dialect-specific SQL queries with particular end goals in mind. I've also written business and/or software specs with it, drafted MVP designs for software, and am currently using it in conjunction with a development AI tool called Warp to write two different apps.

I feel that the output is conservatively that of a $100,000 annual salary developer, and probably at least a 2x efficiency boost to a competent developer based on the time-savings.

Critical to understand:
1. The more explicitly and specifically you can outline objectives to these tools, the more likely they are to get it right
2. It relies on a sufficient corpus of data to yield good results, so these tools are unlikely to yield good results when working with a new coding tool/concept/language
3. It is not error-proof. If you don't have a (sometimes basic, sometimes more) understanding of programming logic, results will vary
4. It is not 100% optimal. Just as above, if you can't recognize suboptimal code or propose better ways, you may end up with suboptimal app performance
5. It will not give unbiased opinions (even based on evidence). It is more likely to explain to you why you're right about something, than why you're wrong about something
6. Tools are getting better at addressing the first five points rapidly, and a developer who doesn't use these tools is already disadvantaged compared to a developer who does

I'm just beginning to try to understand AI, Ben, not as a fan nor as a detractor, but simply because it is here to stay and until the power runs out, it will eventually influence basically everything. So my question is this: If we were to define "true AI" as something that, "Exhibits a broad spectrum of cognitive abilities, comparable to human intelligence, allowing it to understand, and to reason on its own, and learn across diverse domains", is ChatGPT true AI?

Yeah, ChatGTP is true AI. It does a lot more than just answer questions. For example, I could just enter a job posting for a job I'm applying for and copy and paste my resume, and ChatGPT will create a perfect unique cover letter for me suitable only for that job, created to try and get me that interview. And that's just a really basic use for it.

I'm fairly certain what you are talking about is not what I understand true AI to be. If you go to the video I posted above with the conversation between Sir Stephen Fry and Yuval Hahari (well worth the half hour to watch in any case), Fry and Harari talk about how true AI can do things we cannot. At around 6:02 Fry says, "...if it could only match what we did, it would not be a tool..." and how AI can outmatch what we can do. ChatGPT may be able to write your resume faster than you, but you are intelligent enough to be able to write a resume as well as ChatGPT.
I think we are probably on the brink of, or even at, the point of true AI, but my impression is that the term "AI" gets tossed around a bit too easily. The things we describe as AI are things that the machine does on our command. True AI is or will be something capable of doing things without commands and (again, this is in the video) when true AI is fully functional, we will be living in a hybrid society. The ramifications of that are fascinating at best, disturbing or even disastrous for humans at worse.
I'm not trying to be fear mongering here, but I think if you watch the Fry/Harari video as well as this shorter one:
https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_why_ai_is_our_ultimate_test_and_greatest_invitation
you will understand that I am not (as jwhjr17 above seems to be implying) simply dear mongering. I'm just observing what we are creating.

Well I definitely can't write a perfect personlized cover letter specific to one job posting in 3 seconds, lol.

I din't care what Steohen Fry says, as much as I like him. He's not even an authority on the subject. Real AI does a lot of things. It doesn't have to be completely autonomous to be AI.

brianlux · July 30

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

benjs said:

I've used ChatGPT to successfully write complex dialect-specific SQL queries with particular end goals in mind. I've also written business and/or software specs with it, drafted MVP designs for software, and am currently using it in conjunction with a development AI tool called Warp to write two different apps.

I feel that the output is conservatively that of a $100,000 annual salary developer, and probably at least a 2x efficiency boost to a competent developer based on the time-savings.

Critical to understand:
1. The more explicitly and specifically you can outline objectives to these tools, the more likely they are to get it right
2. It relies on a sufficient corpus of data to yield good results, so these tools are unlikely to yield good results when working with a new coding tool/concept/language
3. It is not error-proof. If you don't have a (sometimes basic, sometimes more) understanding of programming logic, results will vary
4. It is not 100% optimal. Just as above, if you can't recognize suboptimal code or propose better ways, you may end up with suboptimal app performance
5. It will not give unbiased opinions (even based on evidence). It is more likely to explain to you why you're right about something, than why you're wrong about something
6. Tools are getting better at addressing the first five points rapidly, and a developer who doesn't use these tools is already disadvantaged compared to a developer who does

I'm just beginning to try to understand AI, Ben, not as a fan nor as a detractor, but simply because it is here to stay and until the power runs out, it will eventually influence basically everything. So my question is this: If we were to define "true AI" as something that, "Exhibits a broad spectrum of cognitive abilities, comparable to human intelligence, allowing it to understand, and to reason on its own, and learn across diverse domains", is ChatGPT true AI?

Yeah, ChatGTP is true AI. It does a lot more than just answer questions. For example, I could just enter a job posting for a job I'm applying for and copy and paste my resume, and ChatGPT will create a perfect unique cover letter for me suitable only for that job, created to try and get me that interview. And that's just a really basic use for it.

I'm fairly certain what you are talking about is not what I understand true AI to be. If you go to the video I posted above with the conversation between Sir Stephen Fry and Yuval Hahari (well worth the half hour to watch in any case), Fry and Harari talk about how true AI can do things we cannot. At around 6:02 Fry says, "...if it could only match what we did, it would not be a tool..." and how AI can outmatch what we can do. ChatGPT may be able to write your resume faster than you, but you are intelligent enough to be able to write a resume as well as ChatGPT.
I think we are probably on the brink of, or even at, the point of true AI, but my impression is that the term "AI" gets tossed around a bit too easily. The things we describe as AI are things that the machine does on our command. True AI is or will be something capable of doing things without commands and (again, this is in the video) when true AI is fully functional, we will be living in a hybrid society. The ramifications of that are fascinating at best, disturbing or even disastrous for humans at worse.
I'm not trying to be fear mongering here, but I think if you watch the Fry/Harari video as well as this shorter one:
https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_why_ai_is_our_ultimate_test_and_greatest_invitation
you will understand that I am not (as jwhjr17 above seems to be implying) simply dear mongering. I'm just observing what we are creating.

Well I definitely can't write a perfect personlized cover letter specific to one job posting in 3 seconds, lol.
I din't care what Steohen Fry says, as much as I like him. He's not even an authority on the subject. Real AI does a lot of things. It doesn't have to be completely autonomous to be AI.

I'm certain that before too long we will have a much more clear idea what AI truly is. I certainly make no claims to be an expert- just a concerned old fool, lol.

News and What's New in AI

Comments

Categories