Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/1623/
Though don’t get me started on how many things are called “holograms.”
Pepper’s ghost isn’t a hologram. It’s just a reflection with more steps.
It took me a few minutes to figure out what your Picassoesque reindeer was. I thought it was some kind of deformed moose.
I don’t mean to be negative though … the content and writing is great … it’s just the image of the reindeer was distracting for a minute before I could look through the rest of the comic.
I think it’s cute
deleted by creator
I think I’m cute
Cute, I think I am.
Back in my day, we didn’t have no dang hoverboards, and hoverboards were a thing of the future from 2015 when Marty McFly would fly across the silver screen on his one true hoverboard. I spent the best years of my life working on anti-gravity technology with the hope that I could one day too fly like Marty, on a real hoverboard, but now I just sit in my own graveyard of failed dreams while the kids are zoomin’ around on their wheely-scooters and calling them hoverboard. Thanks Obama!
2016
They said 2015 but anyone with half a brain gets why they lied about exactly which year they were in. And if you and got that then: Cubs
Obama has probably received more thanks than any person since Jesus.
What is this holo-deck they speak of?
Well, it’s not a surprise that the definition of “AI” is not based on how it is represented in fiction. It shouldn’t.
But the definition of AI is still oddly large and include a lot of things that probably shouldn’t be part of it.
On the other hand, when people talk about “AI”, it’s almost always about machine learning, aimed at NLP or vision tasks, which is also inaccurate as AI can do much more than that.Why would we base our definition of AI on fiction, rather than using the definition from computer science, which is where the term originated?
ChatGPT behaves very much like the AI we’ve seen in fiction. You can use it pretty much exactly like the crew of the Starship Enterprise uses the ship’s computer.
Edit: star ship to starship
In personally trying to use ChatGPT 4 for a job task (programming), I would disagree strongly with this sentiment. I have yet to find a task where it doesn’t partially fail due to no notion of the concepts underlying the topic.
In an example, I asked it to write an implementation of reading from a well known file type as a class. It had many correct ideas for certain operations (compiled from other sources of course), but failed with the basic concept of class instantiation. It was calling class methods in the constructor, which is just not allowed in the language being used. I went through several iterations with it to avail before just giving up on it.
In “normal” language tasks, it seems to be quirky, but passable. But if you give it a highly technical task where nuance and conceptual knowledge are needed? I have yet to see that work in any reliable capacity.
I use it for programming a lot too. You have to explain everything to it like you would a brand new engineer, and then it is often wrong with certain parts like you said. But if you know enough about coding to figure out where it’s wrong, and just write those parts yourself, it can still be a huge time saver.
Yeah, I’d agree that with sufficient iterations and clarifying remarks ChatGPT can produce something close to functional. I was mostly disagreeing with the original comment’s sentiment that it could be treated like the computer on the Enterprise. While they had several plot specific flaws, the duotronic computers were generally competent and didn’t need everything spelled out for them.
