The rebranding of AI to mean generative tools does a real disservice to a lot of the actual cool and neat things that machine vision can do.
I can program a Raspberry Pi to send me a photo whenever my cats drink water.
Can't do that with generative AI.

September 02, 2024 - 03:58 UTC

6
1
204
Yeah, would agree there. Generative AI sucks. There's a lot more in general machine learning that's actually pretty great and has brought about benefits. That comes with a lot of hard work to Train models and set limits. It definitely needs experts in computing AND whatever field.
0
0
6
I do build and run tiny generative language models on my Raspberry Pis, using my hand curated collections. There are ways to use the tech ethically and even artistically, I believe, but it’s increasingly hard to defend in a culture of big corporate theft.
0
0
5
Yeah, but ALSO calling these things AI is a disservice to the concept of intelligence AND the algorithms. Pattern recognition is a better name. The machines are not intelligent. Ada Lovelace understood this from the very start. Calling it intelligent will lead to disappointment...
2
0
152
But pattern recognition is a VERY useful tool for a lot of stuff. Boring repetitive tasks are well suited for PR. For creatives it can unlock time spent being creative. Like making sure microphones are not out of phase, or quantizing soundfiles. "Generative ai" for art is waste
2
0
92
But wait… isn’t pattern recognition essentially what our brains excel at to allow us to solve complex problems? Example: my brain recognized patterns and drew up a massively oversimplified explanation for intelligence.
1
0
0
And I wouldn’t call that AI but ML. Which has been and will be incredibly useful in so many industries.

But in any case, not everything is AI (and calling an LLM that isn’t even clear)
0
0
6
That's so cute
0
0
0