• polygon6121@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is already worked in through mathematics, it is its own mathematical field. We can optimize packaging through formulas that are very fast and accurate. No need to train a AI for that. Especially not for space flight, AI are prone to hallucinations that is not something you want anywhere near any space mission that requires precision and predictability. I believe Johannes Kepler started this field in the 1600s, it is not something new. It is definitely a complex problem, but not new and not unheard of. Amazon is not exactly inventing something new and amazing here…

    • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      AI is not prone to hallucinations, LLMs are. I doubt Amazon is building a chatbot to optimise packaging.

      • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        What do you consider to be an AI?
        And do you consider any of the existing systems to be the one?

        • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          When I use “AI” I’m using computer science terminology. Artificial intelligence is a subfield of CS, in that sense, any model that comes of that field is, by definition, AI.

          • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Then it’s strange that you are separating AI and LLM, because in CS LLM is a type of artificial intelligence.

            • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Some AI, namely, LLMs, can hallucinate, but not AI in general. I just had a bit of fun in how I worded it, I guess I should’ve expected someone to become annoyingly nitpicky about it.

                • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I don’t think I was being wrong, technically, I do think you can write that way if you want to be a bit facetious, but I’m not a native speaker so, maybe not.

      • polygon6121@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        AI in general is definitely prone to hallucinations. It is more commonly seen in LLMs because it is more widely used by the public. It is definitely a problem with all AI

          • polygon6121@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Text to video, automated driving, object detection, language translations. I might be misusing the term, you could argue that the word is describing what LLMs commonly does and that is where the term is derived from. You can also argue that AI is sometimes correct and the human have issues identifying the correct answer. But In my mind it is much the same just different applications. A car completely missing a firetruck approaching or a LLM just spewing out wrong statements is the same to me.

            • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yeah, well it’s not the same. Models are wrong all the time, why use a different term at all when it’s just “being wrong”?

              • polygon6121@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                The model makes decisions thinking it is right, but for whatever reason can’t see a firetruck or stopsign or misidentifies the object… you know almost like how a human hallucinating would perceive something from external sensory that is not there.

                I don’t mind giving it another term, but “being wrong” is misleading. But you are correct in the sense that it depends on every given case…

                • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  No, the model isn’t “thinking”, no model in use today has anything resembling an internal cognitive process. It is making a prediction. A covid test is predicting whether you have the Covid-19 virus inside you or not. If its prediction contradicts your biological state, it is wrong. If an object recognition algorithm does not predict there being a firetruck, how is that not being wrong in the same way?