ignotum

Oh are you walking back the "it would be unethical" claim, and the claim that AI model cannot give nuanced responses like a human can?

Sounds like you are now saying that a model can be made that is far better than any human expert, but since it can never be perfect and because people are far less forgiving when machines make mistakes, therefore what exactly?

If we could make something that would reduce the absolute amount of yearly mushroom poisonings, then i would view that as an ethically good thing, not doing so would be like not making a medicine because it can give side effects, if the benefits outweigh the risks then i view it as a good thing

You're right, making a robot that's more advanced than anything currently available, sounds like a nice and simple weekend project 🙈

Wait, i don't understand, in what way would giving food to homeless people help the shareholders? Are the shareholders homeless?

I'll only be happy when they make an AI powered robot that can do the dishes and laundry for me

Yeah, over the top AI hype is annoying, and there are many valid criticisms to be had with regard to how AI is being trained and used (mainly generative AI),
but all this absolutist anti-AI nonsense beats everything

So experts cannot identify mushrooms at all by looking at it?

They might turn it around and look at it from different angles, but then just make an AI that takes in multiple images from different angles, maybe have it ask for different angles if it cannot see everything it needs to see.

And if the experts use other senses besides vision, like smell and touch, just make an AI that says "it might be X or Y, only way to tell them apart is through the smell, so i can't be sure"

So the argument is that you tried an AI once and it didn't do a thing, therefore it is impossible to create an AI that is able to do it?

Let's say we reach the point where we can scan and then simulate the entire brain of a mushroom expert, then you'd have an AI that would give the same responses as a human expert would, is it ethical now? (Ignoring the ethics of simulating a person like that)

Simple classification problems are relatively trivial, just train an image classifier to take in a picture of a mushroom and have it predict the type, as well as whether or not the mushroom is similar to a dangerous one, and for good measure whether the picture is good enough to give reliable results. Train it based on feedback from experts and it should end up as reliable as the experts it was based on

So an AI that can identify mushrooms and also tell the user if a mushroom is too similar to a different dangerous mushroom to be identified with a high enough certanity for it to be safe, would be ethical?

Then how can anyone claim that no such system can ever be created? That makes no sense

By that logic it would be unethical for an expert to give advice, or to even teach others to identify mushrooms, since they too are fallible and it could lead to death?

Or saying it was unethical to invent cars because they can (and most certainly do) cause deaths.

Almost everything would be unethical really, the world is chaotic, nothing is perfect, deaths happen, all we can do is work to reduce the risks

Oh really? I just downvoted my own comment, and downvote_hunter did nothing to stop this from happening!

Lemmy has an 94 to 18 ratio of furries based on the votes

And it's just a matter of time before the few remaining holdouts also succumb to the pathowogen

One of us, one of us

EDIT: it just jumped from 90:18 to 91:17, the conversion has already begun

Okay.
Capitalism really does protect individual property rights, which is fundamental for people to build wealth and pursue their own goals. And the competitive free market it creates is what drives innovation and efficiency, ultimately making better products and services available to everyone.

Did i pass?