It it not actually unpopular in the broader population, but AI seems like a dirty word on lemmy, just like a far-right's gut reaction to words like "communism" or "socialism".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

I don't see how the non-profit is relevant there. If it works then it works independent of who made it. I just don't think we're there yet. If you're stranded on a deserted island then maybe it'll do a better job keeping you sane than Wilson does but in its current form it's nowhere near the replacement for real human connection.

The suicide examples people love to bring up are not because the evil corporations made them such - it's an inherent flaw of the systems themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

    Yes. We all train chatbots the same way. There's a first step where it's fed a lot of text to learn to mimic coherent language and learn facts. And then there's a second step where we tune it to do the thing we want it to do. For example write dialogue, answer questions... In contrast to for example write a novel or write unproductive Reddit arguments.

    All of this happens disregarding of who does it. A commercial business or a non-profit. And you'd be left with a similar result with all the upsides and downsides of a chatbot. It will hallucinate, make people spiral into stuff, give bad advice... Amplify mental disorders. That's just what chatbots do, due to how they're made. And there's currently no way around it.

    So it really doesn't matter all that much who does it. It'd help if we had a different type of chatbot which isn't subject to the same kinds of limitations. But we don't.

  • source
  • parent