• blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    They are “media transformers” and might be useful if limited to it.

    Knowledge retrieval certainly not, as “they” know nothing besides how likely one data fragment is to appear near other data fragments.

    • symbolic@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Perhaps I’m using the wrong terminology. But being able to ask in natural language “why is something the way it is” and it returns references to code, bugs, and documentation along with a small summary is pretty cool. It works better than any of the half-baked corporate search engines I’ve used before. Is this not “knowledge retrieval”? In any case I can see the utility.

      • fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’ve tested it with both python and Cisco iOS pretty thoroughly and it very convincingly gets things wrong a lot.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        The problem with that is the constant hallucinations and complete lack of correctness checks.

        • symbolic@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Sure, you can’t trust LLMs and just copy-paste whatever comes out of it. But it’s very effective as a way to find something in very large mixed datasets when you may not know which exact keywords to use for a traditional search engine.

          • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            So your overall point is that AI is a better search engine. “It’s like google, but better.”

            This is both likely true, and no where near fantastical enough to justify the trillion dollar hype cycle.

            • symbolic@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Yeah the AI hype levels are insane, but at the same time I think there is some interesting and actually useful technology there. That’s my 2c anyway.

              The search thing is specific to internal data sets btw. Anyone who has used intranet search engines at large companies would probably relate just how terrible they are. Much worse than Google is at searching the internet.

              • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                Anyone who has used intranet search engines at large companies

                Sharepoint search functionality comes to mind. Our team commonly refers it as write-once storage as once you throw something in there you’ll never find it again. And yes, we stole the term from somewhere.

              • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                “Fixes companies internal documentation” is actually a huge get for AI, and would be worth some real hype, but yeah.

                That’s still peanuts compared to the marketing, which is why people are getting pretty tired of the whole AI push. The actual, incremental improvements are being run over roughshod by snake oil salesmen.

                • symbolic@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  I lived through the dotcom hype cycle, the 5G cycle, the crypto cycle, etc. The useful (boring!) bits of technology remain and something new and shiny becomes the target of hype and speculation a few years later. Nothing new really.

                  • taladar@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    The thing is that this is increasingly not true, hasn’t been true with blockchain and crypto that was all garbage and no substance, not with the metaverse hype, not with any of the hype Elon Musk tried to create (hyperloop?) and not with AI as a worker replacement.

                    There just isn’t any useful bit that sticks around in many cases and where there is those useful bits were never part of the hype or have been around for much longer than the hyped part.

            • symbolic@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              Eh. It’s useful for finding what I want to know. The result to a query which goes like “Based on this paragraph from some documentation written in 2005 (link) the answer is <bunch of generated text rehashing the information I wanted to find in the first place>” is a whole lot more useful than “Here is a list of thousands and thousands of irrelevant and incoherently sorted results, of which one is probably what you were looking for. Good luck.” which was, unfortunately, the state of the art up to this point.