Imagine this, very good grades, strong portfolio and work experience, just to be at the mercy of some random person who rejects you for highly arbitrary reasons like favouring another sports team.
Then you get a default rejection mail, saying they have very carefully considered your application and wish you good luck in your future endeavours.
Fuck this system.
Aren't they already doing that?
That's a complicated way of saying that Microsoft recommends switching to Linux. /j
I don't care about votes. I just hope that people start to comprehend this field a tiny bit better .
But yes. Exactly in the use of "Artificial Intelligence".
Artificial Intelligence is a wide field, consisting of a plethora of methods. LLMs like ChatGPT are part of this wide field, as per definition how researchers are describing the field.
The "intelligence" part is an issue though if taken literal, since we have no clear definition of what "intelligence" even is. Neither for human / natural intelligence, nor for artificial. But that's how the field was labled. We have created a category for a bunch of methods, models and algorithms and sticked "AI" onto it. Therefore I stand by what I have said before:
It is AI.
Due to the lack of a clear definition for "intelligence" I would coarsely outline AI as: mimicking natural thinking, problem solving and decision processes without necessarily being identical. (This makes it difficult to distinguish it from plain calculators though, so a better definition is required.) So if we have a model that is able to distinguish cat pictures from non-cat pictures, that's AI. And if we have "autocorrect on steroids" (credit to Dirk Hohndel) like ChatGPT, that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.
Have you tried Ecosia?
Whithout a clear definition of intelligence, such a discussion is somewhat pointless. The closest thing I would use to describe artificial "intelligence" is: Mimicking human/natural thought and decision processes, without the necessity of being identical.
Secondly, regarding your first paragraph:
Humans excel at providing wrong information. Sometimes they are right. In that regard there are similarities between an LLM and a human.
By the way: LLMs are part of the field of AI. But AI consists of a plethora of methods and algorithms, where LLMs are just a tiny fraction that is currently very popular.
Spoiler! I still haven't played through Skyrim.
Crowdstrike already showed very impressively the danger of monopolies.
Fair point. But still pretty bad. Literally two days after the warranty expired my Seagate drive was broken. This was my first and only Seagate drive. Never again.
Meanwhile my old Western Digital drive is still kicking way beyond it's warranty. Almost 10 years now.
Yeah sure, if someone does not fit in with the team and it's a rather social job, fair enough.
But using something arbitrary like favouring some sports team, even though this served as an example, this doesn't seem to be either a significant nor sufficient decision basis.