Open Source AI is Amazing

[melk]

The one thing that sucks about this being "a single .jpg" is that, being an image, none of your information can be selected as text and copied/pasted. The only thing that sucks more is trying to craft a half-decent email signature!

MacOS / iOS can select text from images. I would have thought Windows/Android can also?

 

[gman2304]

I’m a pioneer in Artificial Intelligence. I’ve been using it my entire life!

 

[Brons2]

I don't agree that the open source AI is good. The commercial AI models are much better. I've tried and gone back to the commercial ones, i.e., Claude, ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini.

I suppose that you could train your own open source model that was just as good as the commercial sites if you had the right hardware to support it. The tools are out there for anyone to access and set up your own.

It's fun to play with the local models if you are a PC enthusiast like I am, but, for serious work I'm going back to Claude or ChatGPT. If I have to upload work data, then Copilot because we pay for it and the data is not used to train the model per our license.

 

[el Nuke]

I'm not going to say that AI can go through your attic. That is actually proving a point that many are saying about AI, that it isn't going to replace everybody's job.

But it surely has many capabilities. Take this article from WaPo, talking about how the US military used AI in the strikes on Iran (not sure if this is behind a paywall or not, I believe this article can be gifted for the next 14 days):


The "system" referenced in the quote above was the US military's Maven Smart System, which was according to the article, built by Palantir & powered by Claude, whatever that is supposed to mean.

It appears to be behind a paywall, at least for me.

But the one paragraph I was able to read noted how the use of AI helped with the abundance of targets in the early hours of the conflict.

I wish I could read more. I would very much like to know whose colossal mistake it was to bomb the school. Was that the fault of the AI or a human?

Because if it’s a human, that human needs to be called out on the carpet. If it was AI, well, I guess nothing can really be done in that case…

 

[paulri]

You might need to set up an account, but the article can be accessed free. But no paywall.

It appears to be behind a paywall, at least for me.

But the one paragraph I was able to read noted how the use of AI helped with the abundance of targets in the early hours of the conflict.

I wish I could read more. I would very much like to know whose colossal mistake it was to bomb the school. Was that the fault of the AI or a human?

Because if it’s a human, that human needs to be called out on the carpet. If it was AI, well, I guess nothing can really be done in that case…

 

[OVERKILL]

What I would see as a concern of AI is a continuous dumbing down of people’s god given gift of researching, and critical thought and thinking.

AI surely makes me lazy, and gives information I likely take as fact, and the information may be absolutely false.


Kind of like video games of sports replacing actual sports. One misses out on the leadership, followership, pressure, and preparation one receives when playing actual sports, and receives none of those benefits playing video game sports.

This. I regularly see AI-generated content presented as absolute fact by people that know little to nothing about a subject. It's lazy and rude, but at least makes it easy to identify who to avoid interacting with further. I saw a Canadian politician yesterday quote AI staffing figures for Canadian nuke plants that were so far from accurate it was laughable.

What would have typically required at least some basic level of research is now being replaced by a prompt and a convincingly worded response that's just accepted as "the truth" without even a glimpse at the source(s). Manifesting alternative realities based on AI fever dreams and slop.

That said, for hobby-level programming, it's great for efficiency. Saves huge amounts of time.

 

[IndyIan]

This. I regularly see AI-generated content presented as absolute fact by people that know little to nothing about a subject. It's lazy and rude, but at least makes it easy to identify who to avoid interacting with further. I saw a Canadian politician yesterday quote AI staffing figures for Canadian nuke plants that were so far from accurate it was laughable.

What would have typically required at least some basic level of research is now being replaced by a prompt and a convincingly worded response that's just accepted as "the truth" without even a glimpse at the source(s). Manifesting alternative realities based on AI fever dreams and slop.

That said, for hobby-level programming, it's great for efficiency. Saves huge amounts of time.

Yep, I do find many of the free options tend to give you the simplest answer it thinks you are looking for. Or sometimes spits out non-sensical statements on topics I know the subject matter, so it makes me a bit skeptical when researching something I know very little about. A follow up, "Are you sure?" sometimes give you a totally different answer!

 

[OVERKILL]

Yep, I do find many of the free options tend to give you the simplest answer it thinks you are looking for. Or sometimes spits out non-sensical statements on topics I know the subject matter, so it makes me a bit skeptical when researching something I know very little about. A follow up, "Are you sure?" sometimes give you a totally different answer!

Yeah, his said Canadian nuclear plants typically employ 300-500 people. This may be a reasonably accurate figure for a single unit US PWR in a competitive market, but ours employ about 10x that.

 

[Plumb Bob]

That said, for hobby-level programming, it's great for efficiency. Saves huge amounts of time.

For coding, hobby or otherwise, saves a lot of time. Of course, the watchful eye of a software engineer or programmer completes the equation.