https://futurism.com/the-byte/government-ai-worse-summarizing
The upshot: these AI summaries were so bad that the assessors agreed that using them could require more work down the line, because of the amount of fact-checking they require. If that's the case, then the purported upsides of using the technology — cost-cutting and time-saving — are seriously called into question.
I recall my AI class discussed a bunch of different things that people call AI that don't come anywhere near "replacement human". For instance, the AI in red alert 2 has some basic rules about buildings and gathering a certain number of units and send them the players way.
Obviously, RA2s "AI" isn't being used for labour discipline and llms are massively overhyped but I think getting hung up on the word is... idk, kinda a waste of time (as I feel like a lot of this thread is)
deleted by creator
I think people are allowed to be annoyed, but if thats all you want to talk about i think its a waste of energy? It's just language, we can call it flubbon if you like and move the conversation along.
Unless we want to get bogged down talking about whether band aids "medical adhesive strips", which is a perfectly fine conversation to have if that's what both participants want to talk about.
deleted by creator
Because people call it an AI instead of a bunch of related trained predictive algorithms? If the other things were happening (labour discipline, art theft, using a gallon of water to run a bad google search) but people were using whatever term you wanted, what would actually change?
Like, I'm not saying it's wrong to be annoyed by these companies ad copy, and there's absolutely people out there who think "AI" is more human than their employees, it's just a huge amount of time and energy wasted over a relatively minor part of the whole relationship. Even this 3 reply exchange here is probably too much.
deleted by creator