424
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
424 points (94.5% liked)
Technology
87002 readers
2735 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
dead-eyed stare in librarian
How could that even be true since it was humans thay trained ai. What a dumb statement ahh
Ai can do plenty of classification tasks better than humans though. It's not like every entity that trains another is fundamentally smarter.
Software can't tell truth from lies because software doesn't even know what those are. It doesn't know anything. It's a parrot, a magic trick, a mirror to fool people (people like George Lucus) into thinking there's another person looking a back at them.
Regardless many ai classifiers outperform humans at classifying. Your comment seems irrelevant to the discussion.
The parameters set for classifying that are basically non-existant. So no, they can't really do any of that. AI-bros will readily claim they can though, because it is like really important to them.
I did not claim they can tell truth from fiction, it's just irrelevant. Goalpost shift for no reason on their part, they don't have to be able to do that to classify things or predict protein folding.
As opposed to your comment moving the goalposts from an AI doing something humans can't, to them just being better than humans (which is absolutely arguable in most cases)?
I was responding to the claim that ai's can't do anything better than the thing that trained them. It's completely relevant and not a goalpost shift. They can do plenty of things that humans can't feasibly do, such as protein folding prediction.
Your brain is also software
Yeah but to say humans can't do this when humans doing it were what provided it the data is a dumb statement. Humans classified the data so that AI could learn you wouldnt say humans can't classify data.
Humans can, ai can do it better than humans in many areas though.
That's a MUCH different statement though, and not at all relevant to a claim that AI is able to do things humans CAN'T do.
Protein folding, then.
In most areas it can't. It can do a much worse job though, if that is what you are looking for.
So? In many it can do a much better one: protein folding for example
When I was in college I built a chess playing program that I couldn't beat. It wasn't very good, but it was much better than me. The trick is machine learning: teach it the rules, get it to play millions of games against itself and adjust its strategy after each game.
The AI can become better at a learnable skill than those who trained it because the AI can spend zillions of hours practicing
Yes but thats not whats happening here. The base is created by using human data.
"thay"
Useful comment
AI detection by AI is not reliable. Lots of false negatives, and comparatively less but still too much reporting false positives to be reliable (and those are especially biased).
It's unlikely to get better too. If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like? And where is the seemingly infinite money thrown at in this struggle?
You just described adversarial training, something I've been hearing about for at least a few years now.