What I dislike is the idea of AI being something like a physical law. It is not. It’s a result of choices made.
@Saupreiss @chrisstoecker Of course, it is not. But this statement is broken on even more levels.
Even if you want to do “AI” in general, the future might still be in small, local models trained on smaller training sets of curated high quality (and hopefully more ethically sourced) training data. Then there surely is no “forever“ dependency.
And even if you want to do the currently hyped behemoths (despite their climate, societal, and monetary costs), the time pressure seems hallucinated. Up to now, “AI” seems to be a field where it is quite easy to enter the competition at a later stage. Several of them have done that. Then there also is no “forever” dependency.
I seem to Sound like an AI hater anyway. I am not. I have successfully used and implemented what was later called „AI“ well over ten years back.
What I oppose against are LLMs… 😉
@Saupreiss @HeptaSean @chrisstoecker
As with ALL tech, of ALL time.
Do you wanna take a guess how the document was produced?
Christian Stöcker
Benjamin Braatz
Saupreiss #Präparat500 👅🥚🥚
Yrrsinn
Rythur
GhostOnTheHalfShell