> "AI" is not software as we commonly understand it.

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

> "AI" is not software as we commonly understand it.

this sentence is instantly and obviously correct

tante (@tante@tldr.nettime.org)

I do have a hot take in me that I hopefully can write something about tonight: "AI" is not software as we commonly understand it.

tldr.nettime (tldr.nettime.org)

[benaveling@infosec.exchange]

@davidgerard
I’m curious to hear what he thinks the implications of that statement are…

[pettter@social.accum.se]

@davidgerard What is meant by 'AI' here? LLM chatbots? ML in general?

[pettter@social.accum.se]

@davidgerard Or more most of the things that are part of the ideological project as such?

[tinybird@timetheft.social]

@davidgerard similarly I've heard "it's just a tool!" from boosters so many times. but to me, a tool is something that does exactly what's expected of it, and can be wielded precisely by a skilled operator.

if I'm a woodworker and my bandsaw sometimes cuts in a straight line and sometimes zig-zags, that's not a tool, it's a fucking liability

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@tinybird this is also why AI generated video is useless for real work

it can't be directed

things previously called "AI", like face swaps, are now just part of the CGI toolkit. because they are *directable*. you can budget and buy it in and you'll get what you expect.

the MPEG gacha game cannot be used as part of a workflow

[aharoni@wikis.world]

@davidgerard Like, yes, but also no? It is software. Unpredictable, undebuggable, fraudulently marketed, and only rarely useful, but still software ‍️

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@aharoni yes that means it's a sequence of bytes that control a computer, and the difference is "as we commonly understand it"

it's not hard to understand this

i think you can wait until he's written the actual piece!