Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ASchmidt" data-source="post: 9617370" data-attributes="member: 6729334">My main issue is that I see "AI" being used in use cases where it's not really a good solution simply because business can generate interest simply by including "AI". That it's being used as marketing either to the end-user or towards other executives who don't know better. We'll just slap some AI on it and look at us, we're futuristic!And in mission critical operations, AI assistance is generally worse than not having it because humans tend to become reliant upon AI assistance and assume it is correct if it has success rate of around 85-90% or better meaning they miss the errors it generated and let them through. This is true on everything from software developers using generated code to autopilot systems (both for cars and aircraft) to people trusting what ChatGPT tells them. It's a long known phenomenon. It's why Teslas (Cybertruck excluded) have better safety systems than many other cars yet have a crash rate higher than the Pinto. People trust the self-drive even though it's not a trustable system.So the die down I'm talking about is a scaling back in how applications and services utilize AI where executives got over eager and are suddenly finding out that it won't deliver quite as they expected. I'm not saying there aren't totally valid use cases. I'm saying executives caught another tech marvel coming out of the Valley and got over eager about it and now they're out past the end of their skis. There are going to be some absolutely perfect uses for it, no doubt at all. But the current state of "AI" is evolutionary, not revolutionary.</blockquote>

Verification