you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 11 months ago (15 children)

I hate that ai just means llm now. ML can actually be useful to make predictions based on past trends. And it's not nearly as power hungry

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 11 months ago* (6 children)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Do you have an example of some games that use small neural networks for their NPC AIs? I was under the impression that most video game AIs used expert systems, at least for built-in ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 11 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    As I understand, chess AIs are more like brute force models that take the current board and generate a tree with all possible moves from that position, then iterating on those new positions up to a certain depth (which is what the depth of the engine refers to). And while I think some might use other algorithms to "score" each position and try to keep the search to the interesting branches, that could introduce bias that would make it miss some moves that look bad but actually set up a better position, though ultimately, they do need some way to compare between different ending positions if the depth doesn't bring them to checkmate in all paths.

    So it chooses the most intelligent move it can find, but does it by essentially playing out every possible game, kinda like Dr Strange in Infinity War, except chess has a more finite set of states to search through.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    What's most annoying to me about the fisasco is that things people used to be okay with like ML that have always been lumped in with the term AI are now getting hate because they're "AI".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    What's worse is that management conflates the two all the time, and whenever i give the outputs of my own ML algorithm, they think that it's an LLM output. and then they ask me to just ask chat gpt to do any damn thing that i would usually do myself, or feed into my ml to predict.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    ? If you make and work with ml you are in a field of research. It's not a technology that you "use". And if you give the output of your "ml" then that is exactly identical to an llm output. They don't conflate anything. Chat gpt is also the output of "ml"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    when i say the output of my ml, i mean, i give the prediction and confidence score. for instance, if there's a process that has a high probability of being late based on the inputs, I'll say it'll be late, with the confidence. that's completely different from feeding the figures into a gpt and saying whatever the llm will say.

    and when i say "ml" i mean a model I trained on specific data to do a very specific thing. there's no prompting, and no chatlike output. it's not a language model

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment