Do you want to save people’s lives by diagnosing respiratory diseases months before even the most competent doctors could buy analysing x-rays and CT scans?
Then yes you need AI
AI has it’s legitimate uses and just blindly treating like the devil incarnate only hurts the many many valid criticisms of AI.
Due to the nature of it we aim to minimise false negatives rather than false positives, but our current version gives a correct negative around 98.6% of the time a correct positive around 87.8%
Compassionate fucking Buddha do people—sorry, not people: tech nerds—ever not comprehend the notion of “context” and “common parlance” and such.
Here’s a thought: fuck the fuck right fucking off from a group literally named “fuck AI” if your fucking fee-fees are so fucking fragile you can’t fucking not be a fucking dork, M’kay?
Yeah true, but I’m really proud of the work my team does and very invested in it, so will always come to it’s defence when people say AI in general is bad, even if they probably mean genAI
Yeah true, but I’m really proud of the work my team does and very invested in it, so will always come to it’s defence when people say AI in general is bad, even if they probably mean genAI
It’s not just companies pushing “AI” hype that are dishonest, the term itself is: artificial neural networks today simply do not meet reasonable definitions of intelligent and they won’t anytime soon.
Cheers to you for doing useful work, but why not call it something more accurate like computer vision or medical image computing?
spoiler
i guess maybe because calling things “AI” gets them funded? 😭
We’ve been using the term AI for a very long time now and it’s a very generic term that covers a bunch of technologies, like we’ve been talking about enemies in video games having AI for decades and people don’t find the need to correct that
That is mostly because, at the time, in the reduced context of videogames, it was clear that AI was used to describe the behaviour of non playable entities.
And also, I don’t think video game terms were ever taken to have scientific accuracy (at least I hope not) or, more importantly, ever tried to imply that these entities exhibited “intelligence”.
Now an entire subfield of statistics is being called AI by virtue of the fact that we often do linguistic abuses when it comes to talking about computers or code (something that Dijkstra was vehemently against in this fantastic note about teaching compsci). I don’t know why statisticians felt the need to hype up gradient descent by calling it “learning” but here we are.
Now I know I am caricaturing, but the point I am trying to make is that, now that the cat is out of the bag, and that “AI” is not just an academic term but has been willfully used to get money and to sell products with anything and everything, the unfortunate effect is that for a lot of people, AI = LLMs mostly. And I’d say amongst these people, a number, me included, would like it to stop using that term entirely because of that abuse AND because of the suggestion that it exhibits intelligence, in that context.
I get that it sucks for you and you feel attacked if you do anything that has to do with machine learning or deep learning, but again, context is important, and this comm is pretty clearly against the slop generators (and the term AI altogether for the reasons mentioned), not necessarily all modern tools of statistical analysis and pattern recognition.
Eh, AI is a useful term to describe the subset of computer science that encompasses these more advanced processes such as machine learning, computer vision, LLMs, generative etc.
Arguing wether it’s “true intelligence” or not is just unproductive and pointless, like getting mad that almond milk isn’t really milk.
I concede there was a window of time where that was true. Too early, and AI had nothing to do with the current methods and tried a more symbolic approach. Too late (i.e. now) and the term has been pushed so hard by corpos (because of the superficial semantic reading “AI” => “intelligence” for marketing hype) and it means for a lot of people, whether you like it or not, “ChatGPT”, and it alienated them.
Unproductive? Probably (and for sure in the context of your work). Pointless? Absolutely disagree when companies force that vision of intelligence on us. This has a social impact.
Now maybe this is pointless to you, and that’s ok, but it’s not to a lot of other people.
Fair, but I always take “AI” to mean in particular generative AI (images/videos or text/code), and even more particularly, the models which are shoved into anything and everything and that some of us are “strongly encouraged” to use at work. I suspect many of us do in that comm.
It would be great if language was never abused, and we always made the distinction between this and other applications/fields of statistical learning but marketing departments have decided otherwise…
Do you want to save people’s lives by diagnosing respiratory diseases months before even the most competent doctors could buy analysing x-rays and CT scans?
Then yes you need AI
AI has it’s legitimate uses and just blindly treating like the devil incarnate only hurts the many many valid criticisms of AI.
But how accurate is it. If anything like any other use, it’s dubious at best.
Due to the nature of it we aim to minimise false negatives rather than false positives, but our current version gives a correct negative around 98.6% of the time a correct positive around 87.8%
Compassionate fucking Buddha do people—sorry, not people: tech nerds—ever not comprehend the notion of “context” and “common parlance” and such.
Here’s a thought: fuck the fuck right fucking off from a group literally named “fuck AI” if your fucking fee-fees are so fucking fragile you can’t fucking not be a fucking dork, M’kay?
Buh-bye, bozo.
I mean being autistic makes that a bit harder for me, but don’t let a little ableism get in the way of your weird little circlejerk.
that’s not me that needs it, though, I’m not in that field
I’m not OP but I guarantee you this meme is about generative AI and not the machine learning applications you’re referring to
Yeah true, but I’m really proud of the work my team does and very invested in it, so will always come to it’s defence when people say AI in general is bad, even if they probably mean genAI
It’s not just companies pushing “AI” hype that are dishonest, the term itself is: artificial neural networks today simply do not meet reasonable definitions of intelligent and they won’t anytime soon.
Cheers to you for doing useful work, but why not call it something more accurate like computer vision or medical image computing?
spoiler
i guess maybe because calling things “AI” gets them funded? 😭
We’ve been using the term AI for a very long time now and it’s a very generic term that covers a bunch of technologies, like we’ve been talking about enemies in video games having AI for decades and people don’t find the need to correct that
That is mostly because, at the time, in the reduced context of videogames, it was clear that AI was used to describe the behaviour of non playable entities.
And also, I don’t think video game terms were ever taken to have scientific accuracy (at least I hope not) or, more importantly, ever tried to imply that these entities exhibited “intelligence”.
Now an entire subfield of statistics is being called AI by virtue of the fact that we often do linguistic abuses when it comes to talking about computers or code (something that Dijkstra was vehemently against in this fantastic note about teaching compsci). I don’t know why statisticians felt the need to hype up gradient descent by calling it “learning” but here we are.
Now I know I am caricaturing, but the point I am trying to make is that, now that the cat is out of the bag, and that “AI” is not just an academic term but has been willfully used to get money and to sell products with anything and everything, the unfortunate effect is that for a lot of people, AI = LLMs mostly. And I’d say amongst these people, a number, me included, would like it to stop using that term entirely because of that abuse AND because of the suggestion that it exhibits intelligence, in that context.
I get that it sucks for you and you feel attacked if you do anything that has to do with machine learning or deep learning, but again, context is important, and this comm is pretty clearly against the slop generators (and the term AI altogether for the reasons mentioned), not necessarily all modern tools of statistical analysis and pattern recognition.
Eh, AI is a useful term to describe the subset of computer science that encompasses these more advanced processes such as machine learning, computer vision, LLMs, generative etc.
Arguing wether it’s “true intelligence” or not is just unproductive and pointless, like getting mad that almond milk isn’t really milk.
I concede there was a window of time where that was true. Too early, and AI had nothing to do with the current methods and tried a more symbolic approach. Too late (i.e. now) and the term has been pushed so hard by corpos (because of the superficial semantic reading “AI” => “intelligence” for marketing hype) and it means for a lot of people, whether you like it or not, “ChatGPT”, and it alienated them.
Unproductive? Probably (and for sure in the context of your work). Pointless? Absolutely disagree when companies force that vision of intelligence on us. This has a social impact.
Now maybe this is pointless to you, and that’s ok, but it’s not to a lot of other people.
Not generative, no. Degenerative. LLMbeciles and their ilk. What most people refer to as “AI” today in common parlance.
But they knew that. Just like you did. They just need to be dorks to get that flagging ego of theirs hard.
AI in the setting of radiology is a somewhat useful tool in niche areas but not replacing radiologists anytime soon.
Fair, but I always take “AI” to mean in particular generative AI (images/videos or text/code), and even more particularly, the models which are shoved into anything and everything and that some of us are “strongly encouraged” to use at work. I suspect many of us do in that comm.
It would be great if language was never abused, and we always made the distinction between this and other applications/fields of statistical learning but marketing departments have decided otherwise…