• DarkThoughts@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    The biggest joke is that the LLM in Windows is running locally, it uses your hardware and not some big external server farm. But you can bet your ass that they still use it to data harvest the shit out of you.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      To me this is even worse though. They’re using your electricity and CPU cycles to grab the data they want which lowers their bandwidth bills.

      It happening “locally” while still sending all the metadata home is just a slap in the face.

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

        Also, CoPilot is going to be bundled with Office 365, a subscription service. You’re literally paying them to spy on you.

    • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s a pretty big joke, but I think the bigger joke is calling LLMs AI. We taught linear algebra to talk real pretty and now corps want to use it to completely subsume our lives.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think the bigger joke is calling LLMs AI

        I have to disagree.

        Frankly, LLMs (which are based on neural networks) seem a Hell of a lot closer to how actual brains work than “classical AI” (which basically boils down to a gigantic pile of if statements) does.

        I guess I could agree that LLMs are undeserving of the term “AI”, but only in the sense that nothing we’ve made so far is deserving of it.

        • Brickardo@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Let’s agree to disagree then. An LLM has no notion of semantics, it’s just outputting the most likely word to follow up to what it’s already written and the user’s input.

          On the contrary, expert systems from back in the 90s for, say, predicting the atomic structure of an element, work like a human brain on steroids. It features an arbitrary large search tree that the software knows how to iterarively prune according to a well known set of chemical rules. We do the same when analyzing a set of options.

          Debugging “current” AI models, on the other hand, is impossible because all we’re doing is prescripting a composition of functions and forcing it to minimize a loss function. That’s all we’re doing. How can you currently tell that a certain model is going to work? Unless the mathematical theory ever catches up with the technology, we’ll never know until we execute the code.