Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Juan097 t1_irjdvi6 wrote

Sure that’s how software works. Sure we wrote machine language first, but quickly realized “this sucks” and used machine language to write software that makes it easier to write software. Then we wrote new languages and tools on top of that.

Same with any tools. You use a stone to make a knife. You use a knife to make an axe and a hammer and nails.

We are constantly using existing tools to make more specialized tools to do something. I don’t see why AI should be any different.

121

Memomomomo t1_irlhbgy wrote

because scifi has done irrevocable damage to public perception of AI

people will complain about boomers being scared of nuclear energy and then immediately type up the dumbest take you've ever seen regarding AI

12

AesonMeric t1_irlpqfe wrote

>You use a stone to make a knife.

I like how our brain could be the stone in this analogy. Yeah, we're just working with software now, but the end goal is to capture (and improve) functionalities of the human brain.

And to be melodramatic, the stone is forgotten in the end.

3

Kyocus t1_irpwqpo wrote

Scalability is the primary difference.

1

[deleted] t1_irkh7qg wrote

[removed]

−18

potatolover00 t1_irlb9ir wrote

It absolutely is the same.

Have you read/seen what AI makes? It's recycled off other works and often has issues humans easily see.

−1

guerillawobbler t1_irlkz7n wrote

You’re assuming that what is currently happening is going to be static?

Nah, I don’t buy it.

A hammer and nail would not be able improve and build themselves. Which AI has the potential to do.

2

potatolover00 t1_irll3r3 wrote

Improve themselves? Ai doesn't do that yet, doesn't have the ability to think yet, and current methods of constructing AI focus more on slight adjustments and trials on the scale of billions of interations a second rather than typing it up in Jimmy's basement.

−1