Do you use AI?

No

It's the devil.

Searching for information is absolutely the last thing that I would use an AI for because it's frequently wrong.

Yes it's no better or worse than autotune singers etc. However there are, and always have been, people who can sing well. There are people who can act well - both amateur and professional. There are even still people who can draw and paint well though they aren't represented in the corrupted art market (which runs on connections and funny money).

Basically AI can replicate human activity insofar as that human activity has already been reduced to a fake or the lowest common denominator.

what platform are you using? i have perplexity pro that i got free for a year, it includes all the main models if i recall but have not used it much yet

I disagree strongly that there's no such thing as good and bad art.

It's isn't wholly subjective. When I see a failed painting I can explain to someone why it is a failure if I study it long enough.

You don't even necessarily need to be a painter or art expert to understand and judge correctly.

For instance a fashion designer or even a sharp-eyed assistant in a clothes shop can understand the difference between multiple shades of complementary colours that 'work' together vs. colours that clash and are too discordant. (This is spontaneous and not 'traditional'.)

There are many other ways that a painting 'looks off' and somebody with enough art education should be able to articulate why that is, and also explain what make a good painting a success.

The demarcation between good and bad is obscured because the art market is heavily corrupted by using abstract art works for large money transfers and hidden-in-plain-sight money laundering. It's also corrupted by the promotion of 'connected' artists who aren't talented enough and go down cul-de-sacs of (mostly-fruitless) experimentation to compensate.

The claim of radical subjectivity covers up for these failures but there are many art works that are genuinely liked by nobody and the only people claiming to like them are the artist, the media paid to promote the 'work' and art agents and networks of high-end buyers who are using the 'work' as an illegible financial asset.

I used chatgp last week to do up a quote for an insurance claim, I fed it the info and gave it the price i needed it to come to. It came back at me asking was it for an insurance claim as it could tweak the wording to make it acceptable to the assessor which I would make a balls of, after 15 minutes of back and forth it had a comprehensive quote with all the proper wording for the insurance company.

It saved me a lot of time sitting in front of the laptop hitting letters with one finger on the keyboard and trying to make it look professional

@Tony EH

"And yet discordance is used in art all the time, including the fashion world."

Contrast is, but only where the colours off-set each other in a harmonious way. I don't mean that colours always blend together but that there is harmony of a kind.

Someone who understands music could explain why Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 "works" and someone else could say their own arbitrary unmusical composition is "just as good" or better. (It's very hard to set down a positivist criteria that everyone will agree-to for any artform.)

We won't agree obv so I won't keep arguing.

Anyway it seems to me that low standards and confusion over what is good are totally necessary for so-called AI to "flourish". Yet where human judgment is replaced by inferior alogorithmic "thinking" we could see a lot of chaos resulting with various system failures.

It's going to be a huge job destroyer I expect, but in some ways this may not be such a bad thing if (trying to be positive/optimistic) our governments can regulate and control it, put some manners on the companies/people building this technology and ensure wealth generated from it in future gets distributed across society.

Am coming to think AI combined with robotics is going to make fears about some "pensions time bomb" exploding in our future, aging and demographic change in wealthy countries and women not having enough babies etc. look absolutely daft in hindsight over the next decade.

Not strictly true you can get AI to recheck, confirm, evaluate, and list sources if you want accuracy. Human evalution is always best in conjunction with the AI

As I said earlier google gemini is great for it's federated search. Since my last post I have moved on from using google gemini for Geneology which it was superb at helping at that. I have now started using it for breaking down gaa match reports.

I think in 10 years time teaching primary school kids how to use the correct prompts for AI wil be common place. As for chat gpt it is not great for detailed research unlike google gemini. More of a light hearted fluff AI - the eviqualent of a TV3 fluff "emotional" documentary v a serious researched RTE one. That is how I see the differences of the two.

In 10 years time AI will be ubiquitous, Really looking forward to see the advances it can make in the fields of medicine etc.

Hopefully in about five years people will get to that using AI. I noticed when doing the genealogy searches there was some techinical difficulties with some census references. Either due to migration to the new site, or how it was inputted incorrectly from the people transcribing the census itself.

The AI was able to bypass this issue, and I asked it to explained how it did so. It gave me a detailed and long technical explanation.

Following on from your point it occurred to me then that eventually AI will be able to trawl the internet much more effectively a researchers dream. But on the other side of things if people are worried about privacy issues, fraud etc there are obvious potential issues there too.

Use it everyday its great. Saves me hours every week.