Among a strong field, this is the single most depressing comment I’ve ever read on Hacker News. Several grim components but it’s the “I don’t understand why” which seals the deal.
I trust a proper solution (even though I can be certain how accurate it is), which compares to a known dataset much more than just giving it an AI. For identifying current living species it is probably fine but this is something to nice for an AI to be trustable. Also this path is much more fun and you learn sonething along the way!
but, from my understanding what the author was really wanting was an adventure and to learn new things. he gained so much more than just learning what type of shell it is
No one. I'm pointing out there are existing AI models that can do this that the author could have tried before investing all the work to build his own.
I don't think you understand why the author did this on a fundamental level. Sometimes it isn't explicitly about getting the outcome directly, it's about putting in the work to understand how you get there.
The AI would confidently give him the wrong answer, since it has no way to provide the correct answer, and doesn't know its own limitations. (Or however you wish to describe "hallucinations", which is about as accurate as my description ;))
And he would think he has the right answer, perhaps write up an essay about his findings, which later AI bots will read and learn from, propgating the mistake...
Wait, the author identified the shell as "Sphincterochila candidissima". Which is a living species of air-breathing land snail, a terrestrial pulmonate gastropod mollusk. Completely off.
Among a strong field, this is the single most depressing comment I’ve ever read on Hacker News. Several grim components but it’s the “I don’t understand why” which seals the deal.
[dead]
how is it depressing? that seems a tad strong. Maybe disappointment is the correct feeling
Why? Calling a reasonable thing grim without any follow-up isn’t the hallmark of a good comment either.
It is not remotely reasonable to ask "but why didn't he feed it to ChatGPT?". It is pretty silly to assume that ChatGPT should always be consulted.
2 replies →
I trust a proper solution (even though I can be certain how accurate it is), which compares to a known dataset much more than just giving it an AI. For identifying current living species it is probably fine but this is something to nice for an AI to be trustable. Also this path is much more fun and you learn sonething along the way!
but, from my understanding what the author was really wanting was an adventure and to learn new things. he gained so much more than just learning what type of shell it is
Maybe he's not an idiot?
Who says the whole analysis isn’t AI inspired?
No one. I'm pointing out there are existing AI models that can do this that the author could have tried before investing all the work to build his own.
> investing all the work to build his own.
I don't think you understand why the author did this on a fundamental level. Sometimes it isn't explicitly about getting the outcome directly, it's about putting in the work to understand how you get there.
1 reply →
The AI would confidently give him the wrong answer, since it has no way to provide the correct answer, and doesn't know its own limitations. (Or however you wish to describe "hallucinations", which is about as accurate as my description ;))
And he would think he has the right answer, perhaps write up an essay about his findings, which later AI bots will read and learn from, propgating the mistake...
The AI would confidently give him the wrong answer
There is irony here that does not sleep.
Wait, the author identified the shell as "Sphincterochila candidissima". Which is a living species of air-breathing land snail, a terrestrial pulmonate gastropod mollusk. Completely off.
Because it’s much more fun that way
Is this example of vector search not "AI" enough?
GenAI is the new AI, now, unfortunately. PapersWithCode died for this.