Reply With Quote
don't overthink it, we're talking about Clippy y'all. Generative AI is more noisy ripoff and bull .
What if that little from Microsoft has been Skynet all along?
don't overthink it, we're talking about Clippy y'all. Generative AI is more noisy ripoff and bull .
No, generative AI is not "bull ." It is a field of artificial intelligence that uses algorithms and models to generate new data that is similar to existing data. This can include generating images, text, music, or other types of content.
Generative AI has a wide range of potential applications, including in creative fields such as art and music, as well as in more practical areas such as data augmentation and data synthesis. It is also used in the development of other AI applications, such as in the creation of training data for machine learning algorithms.
However, as with any technology, there are potential ethical and societal concerns related to the use and development of generative AI, such as the potential for it to be used for malicious purposes or to spread disinformation. As such, it is important to approach generative AI with a critical and thoughtful perspective, and to consider the potential benefits and risks before deploying such technologies in various contexts.
Microsoft's Clippy is an example of an early AI-based digital assistant that was designed to provide users with helpful prompts and suggestions in Microsoft Office applications such as Word and Excel.
Clippy was introduced in 1997 as a part of Microsoft Office 97 and used machine learning algorithms and natural language processing (NLP) techniques to interpret user input and provide appropriate responses. The software was designed to analyze the user's text input and recognize patterns in order to predict and suggest relevant actions or commands.
Although Clippy was not as successful as Microsoft had hoped and was eventually discontinued, it represents an early example of how AI and NLP techniques can be applied to create digital assistants that can help users complete tasks more efficiently and effectively.
thread context was chatbots, but sure, 100% agree
I'm just passing along what ChatGPT said about it, I have no skin in this game.
I have no doubt there's apps utilizing Generative AI out there that are or someday will be commercially and personally useful and abuseful to people; I reserve the right to about quality. It's noisy and it mostly sucks. It has seldom been personally useful to me.
GIGO
I don't have a schtick you ing pussy. Go talk some more out of your ass about street fights.
Wow woke humor is complete
LOL scary funny.
Eh, scary funny is my gangster AI app threatening to kill me if I asked it to look at calf-tat’s browser history again.
bowdlerizing curriculum
hilarious if true
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/15/11940...defcon-test-it
AI interposes a layer of ersatz impartiality between ers and the ed.
not ready for prime time
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/01/...usly-terrible/There may come a time when journalists around the world are left to point at massive datacenters housing AI journo-bots that have perfectly replicated what human journalists can do, screaming “Dey took ‘er jerbs!” like a South Park episode, but today is not that day. And frankly, it doesn’t feel particularly close to being that day. Over the past few months, as AI platforms have exploded in number and notoriety, as have genuinely interesting ways for using those tools exploded, so too have we written a number of posts on attempts to have bots write journalistic articles only to find them to be sub-par in the extreme.
The world of sports journalism has always been considered the kid brother to the big boy and girl journalists. So perhaps you won’t think it as big a deal when a company like Gannett has to admit that its attempt at injecting AI-written articles for local sports news coverage was a failure, but it’s ultimately all the same problem. And in the case of several of these attempts, the problem went viral and everyone had a good laugh at how terrible the output was.
If you’re not much of a sports fan, or don’t read any sports journalism, allow me to highlight the issues in that brief post. First, it sounds as though it was written by a robot. That was drunk. Or possibly high. Or perhaps had played football itself and taken one too many hits to its primary server. It’s devoid of any specifics, such as named players or descriptions of any plays, particularly important scoring plays. Also, scoring 6 points in the final quarter of a football game and losing is not a “spirited fourth-quarter performance.” And “close encounter of the athletic kind”? What the actual ?
But in case you thought that these publications would have a policy for these articles being reviewed by actual human meat-sacks, or that the above example is as bad as it could get, allow me to disabuse you of both notions with a single article that was written by LedeAI for the Columbus Dispatch.
The Dispatch’s ethical guidelines state that AI content has to be verified by humans before being used in reporting, but it’s unclear whether that step was taken. Another AI-written sports story in the Dispatch initially failed to generate team names, publishing “[[WINNING_TEAM_MASCOT]]” and “[[LOSING_TEAM_MASCOT]].” The Dispatch has since updated AI-generated stories to correct errors.
chop chop
Accurate
"Reshape the World?"
We are ed
the "move fast and break things" ethic in this case would be the functional equivalent of strip mining property rights.
"swipe and don't pay for it"
https://x.com/angryaussie/status/1722484089608138876?s=20
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
