Screenshot of this question was making the rounds last week. But this article covers testing against all the well-known models out there.

Also includes outtakes on the ‘reasoning’ models.

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    It’s no surprise public opinion is these tools are trash when the free models are unable to answer simple questions

    The tools are trash not because they are unreliable but because they are actively destroying human society and culture. They are destroying art, science, journalism, open source software, the internet at large, and the environment we all live in. It wouldn’t matter if the generative models were accurate, they would still be garbage.

    The fact that they are unreliable just serves to highlight what a colossally destructive waste of time and resources this entire exercise has been.

    • alonsohmtz@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Eh, the art industry destroyed itself when it became nothing but sellouts. This happened decades ago.

      The fact is AI can make as-good or better art than most “artists” because most “art” is just cookie-cutter shit for morons.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The fact is AI can make as-good or better art than most “artists” because most “art” is just cookie-cutter shit for morons.

        This is an obvious misstatement. If you actually believe this then you’re not qualified to have opinions on art in general.

        “AI” (in this context meaning generative algorithms, because there is no intelligence) can no more “make art” than it can think, or care.

        • alonsohmtz@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          This is an obvious misstatement. If you actually believe this then you’re not qualified to have opinions on art in general.

          “At this point, the only thing that makes money is garbage. It’s just fascinating. It makes a fortune, and that’s the bottom line,”

          "writers have been trained to eat and make the garbage too. As long as they are in that arena making that shit, then you might as well have AI do it,”

          -Charlie Kaufman

          https://deadline.com/2023/08/charlie-kaufman-ai-wga-strike-hollywood-sarajevo-1235498089/

          spoiler

          You’re probably one of the people that enjoys cookie-cutter art which is why you get defensive when someone says AI can make it.

          • tortina_original@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Not sure at what point will you realize that what you quoted/said has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic.

            Probably never.

            • alonsohmtz@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 hours ago

              The fact is AI can make as-good or better art than most “artists” because most “art” is just cookie-cutter shit for morons.

              "writers have been trained to eat and make the garbage too. As long as they are in that arena making that shit, then you might as well have AI do it,”

              Learn to read.

              • atomicorange@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Could you define what you mean when you say the word “art”? I think this may be a semantic disagreement. I think the people you’re arguing with are using a definition similar to “human creative expression” while you seem to mean something different.