Hey Mark, 25 years in (non-chatbot, no hype but real science and engineering) AI speaking here.
First of all, congratulations to your channels especially this one, just keep going! Second and objectively related to it: you have nothing to worry about AI. You are a tech YouTuber who does not want to imitate an expert but present your own, unique personality (with a beautiful English, it is a pure joy just to listen to you talking). Your audience is looking for this and will not turn away; your growing popularity is a natural result of that stark contrast to the generated "somewhat readable word salad" content.
Side note, I bought a Nothing CMF Phone 2 following your advice supported by my son and love it 🙏
This clearly demonstrates the real lie of chatbot AI.
The essence of the current AI boom is the "fake it until make it" mentality so popular in the tech venture capital circles (critical distinction from "industry"!), but it is the opposite of the reality. You do not put a spaceship to stable orbit by blowing millions of rockets in your lab, or become a surgeon by chopping up countless people. Not only because you simply can't do that but because if you do that and once succeed, you will not know what was different that time.
Ouch.
LLMs are an attempt to prove that "infinite monkeys over infinite time will write the Hamlet".
Even though that is mathematically true, if you add up the cost and time, it is nonsense in the very literal meaning of the word, and this gradually reveals itself. You can see more and more signs that even business realised it, the end of this bubble is near. But the real issue is that no LLM can replace Shakespeare who wrote Hamlet for the first time. In short, LLMs adapt to all collected data, they can imitate the average, but never an expert. The expert content is and will always be a minority, and the adaptation will never tell the difference between the extremely good and extremely bad outliers. Neither you can pick the expert who is right at the moment: the definition of true invention is that it sounds insane, latest commonly known examples are like the relativity theory or the nuclear chain reaction. Knowing that from retrospect is deceiving.
This is why learning the real history of science would be essential, instead of imitating Hollywood scientists...
I am quite sure that there is no need for decades of hard-core IT experience to realise the ultimate flaw behind the current AI hype. Are you interested in proving this theory as a test subject? 😉
@markelliscreator15 hours ago
That was a lovely, insightful read - thank you! And as for being a test subject, I think I am already 😉
@lkedves3 hours ago
Nah, the subject of my test, "the Kedves Test" if you like 😁 Here it is.
@markelliscreator15 hours ago
That was a lovely, insightful read - thank you! And as for being a test subject, I think I am already 😉
@lkedves3 hours ago
Nah, the subject of my test, "the Kedves Test" if you like 😁 Here it is.
I have a bet with myself that if serious people carefully read the following short text, will have problems answering the questions below in the "expected way" unless they are under pressure: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." (Upton Sinclair, 1935), explains my, at least a decade long experience.
The text is the original definition of the Turing Test (emphasis is mine).
MINDA QUARTERLY REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHYOctober, 1950COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCEBy A. M. Turing1. The Imitation GameI propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think." The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous. If the meaning of the words "machine" and "think" are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, "Can machines think?" is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the 'imitation game." It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart front the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is A and Y is B" or "X is B and Y is A."[...]We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?
The questions: do you think that according to Alan Turing
- Passing the test really means that a machine is intelligent?
- Passing the test is a technical goal that is worth the effort we put in that?
- ... WTF is going on here??? 🤣
Care to answer? 😉 I mean, big boyz spent YOUR money on this quest (and seems to have lost it)
