• IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
    12·
    8 months ago

    It took me a few minutes to figure out what your Picassoesque reindeer was. I thought it was some kind of deformed moose.

    I don’t mean to be negative though … the content and writing is great … it’s just the image of the reindeer was distracting for a minute before I could look through the rest of the comic.

  • RaoulDook@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    8 months ago

    Back in my day, we didn’t have no dang hoverboards, and hoverboards were a thing of the future from 2015 when Marty McFly would fly across the silver screen on his one true hoverboard. I spent the best years of my life working on anti-gravity technology with the hope that I could one day too fly like Marty, on a real hoverboard, but now I just sit in my own graveyard of failed dreams while the kids are zoomin’ around on their wheely-scooters and calling them hoverboard. Thanks Obama!

  • randomsnark@lemmy.mlEnglish
    51·
    8 months ago

    Why would we base our definition of AI on fiction, rather than using the definition from computer science, which is where the term originated?

  • Bonsoir@lemmy.caEnglish
    51·
    8 months ago

    Well, it’s not a surprise that the definition of “AI” is not based on how it is represented in fiction. It shouldn’t.
    But the definition of AI is still oddly large and include a lot of things that probably shouldn’t be part of it.
    On the other hand, when people talk about “AI”, it’s almost always about machine learning, aimed at NLP or vision tasks, which is also inaccurate as AI can do much more than that.

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      5·
      8 months ago

      I think the joke is just more normal shit being named after something fantastic from sci Fi even though it bears no resemblance to the namesake

  • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.mlEnglish
    65·
    8 months ago

    ChatGPT behaves very much like the AI we’ve seen in fiction. You can use it pretty much exactly like the crew of the Starship Enterprise uses the ship’s computer.

    Edit: star ship to starship

    • fakeaustinfloyd@ttrpg.network
      8·
      8 months ago

      In personally trying to use ChatGPT 4 for a job task (programming), I would disagree strongly with this sentiment. I have yet to find a task where it doesn’t partially fail due to no notion of the concepts underlying the topic.

      In an example, I asked it to write an implementation of reading from a well known file type as a class. It had many correct ideas for certain operations (compiled from other sources of course), but failed with the basic concept of class instantiation. It was calling class methods in the constructor, which is just not allowed in the language being used. I went through several iterations with it to avail before just giving up on it.

      In “normal” language tasks, it seems to be quirky, but passable. But if you give it a highly technical task where nuance and conceptual knowledge are needed? I have yet to see that work in any reliable capacity.

      • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.mlEnglish
        31·
        8 months ago

        I use it for programming a lot too. You have to explain everything to it like you would a brand new engineer, and then it is often wrong with certain parts like you said. But if you know enough about coding to figure out where it’s wrong, and just write those parts yourself, it can still be a huge time saver.

        • fakeaustinfloyd@ttrpg.network
          2·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, I’d agree that with sufficient iterations and clarifying remarks ChatGPT can produce something close to functional. I was mostly disagreeing with the original comment’s sentiment that it could be treated like the computer on the Enterprise. While they had several plot specific flaws, the duotronic computers were generally competent and didn’t need everything spelled out for them.