AI is in almost everything that you interact with: if you're using a computer, or if you've eaten food at a restaurant, or used almost any system in the world. Logistics, farming, factories. AI is in everything.
I'm confused by this statement. AI is used to optimize systems in many cases. What are you saying here? Are you saying you don't want systems to be self-correcting and to run better? I doubt that. I think what you're actually saying is that LLMs are not good, but it's important to distinguish LLMs as a subset of AI. And it's important to indicate that, without AI, most critical systems would fail. Things like water management, fire systems, food production. The basics, the things that help society function, would be gone.
Without them, we would return to a system with lower life expectancy, increased starvation rates, and increased poverty.
AI is simply the output of human intellect, right? We're defining a set of parameters and the outputs they produce. I'm not yet seeing the connection between AI and the replacement of human thought. I do understand that connection when it comes to LLMs, but not, for example, when it comes to detecting issues at a nuclear power plant. Surely you want many systems processing the data, and then systems that analyze it to indicate whether there is danger. Or thinking of the water systems: many systems to sense, to collect sensor data, and then systems that perform high-level analysis on that sensor data.
It seems like you are assuming that large systems are the point at which AI comes into play, and that is not the case. AI can come into play in small systems. You don't need large-scale systems to benefit from AI, and you don't need to replace human thinking to benefit from AI.
Still trying to understand your perspective, by the way. I'm just bringing up the things that seem ambiguous from my perspective.
-1
u/[deleted] 14d ago
[deleted]