I'd wager that most revolutionary technologies are either those that expand human knowledge and understanding, and (to a lesser extent) those that increase replicability (like assembly lines)

[–] Transtronaut@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's tricky, because there's no hard definition for what it means to "change the world", either. To me, it brings to mind technologies like the Internet, the telephone, aviation, or the steam engine. In those cases, it seems like the common thread is to enable us to do something that simply wasn't possible before, and is also reliably useful.

To me, AI fails on both those points. It doesn't really enable us to do anything new. We already had chat bots, we already had Photoshop, we already had search algorithms and auto complete. It can do some of those things a lot more quickly than older technologies, but until they solve the hallucination problems it doesn't seem reliable enough to be consistently useful.

These things make it come off more as a potential incremental improvement that is still too early in it's infancy, than as something truly revolutionary.

[–] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 2 points 21 hours ago

It needs to be more trustworthy. If I have to double check everything, I still have to figure out how to do whatever it's doing, then figure out how it's doing the thing, then verify if it did it right. By then, I could have just done it in step 1.5 probably.

[–] zqwzzle@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago

Well it’ll change the world by consuming a shit ton of electricity and using even more precious water to fill the data centres. So changing the world is correct in that regard.