I love the idea of using AI as tool for studying the past, because conceivably, you can train it on every piece of art and writing a particular civilization ever produced and it can analyze that information in a more thorough and efficient way than a human. In my head I hope it’s possible to see ancient cities, or dinosaurs, or battles in historically accurate (and safe) VR experiences one day.
The problem is, as we’ve seen, AI tools are trained on garbage and stolen IP and none of the companies producing these tools care to differentiate between junk and good data, so the information these systems produce is always going to require human validation.
What then is the point? Yes, the image may be pretty and look suitably historic, but we can’t really trust a tool trained on shit not to spit out bad information.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
I love the idea of using AI as tool for studying the past, because conceivably, you can train it on every piece of art and writing a particular civilization ever produced and it can analyze that information in a more thorough and efficient way than a human. In my head I hope it’s possible to see ancient cities, or dinosaurs, or battles in historically accurate (and safe) VR experiences one day.
The problem is, as we’ve seen, AI tools are trained on garbage and stolen IP and none of the companies producing these tools care to differentiate between junk and good data, so the information these systems produce is always going to require human validation.
What then is the point? Yes, the image may be pretty and look suitably historic, but we can’t really trust a tool trained on shit not to spit out bad information.
I would like this to be the takeaway lesson that humans are better at history. However, loads of accepted history is also trained on garbage.