johnvanr
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
bwcolor wrote:
First, as time passes it will be difficult to distinguish person, or AI, but in this case I’ve been on and posted here for many years and I predate AI by a good number of decades. The post not only states that it is AI, but specifies the agent.
Second, the machine that you reference is just a very powerful engine that can assemble information from many more sources than any of us would have time to search for. So, in this case, I thought and still think that this particular AI, Grok4, is a great source, but not 100% reliable resource. It does make errors and can interpret something as fact that is simply conjecture, but that is what we do on this forum on a daily basis. I found the results to be a most likely scenario and I believe, based on what I’ve seen, we are going to get a system that is marketable to a different segment of the population with standard EVF features in a small format manual focus system that includes current video features from much larger Leica systems.
Your last point is a bit entertaining. This whole thread is full of potential misinformation. Many wild and crazy suggestions have been made without any consideration of the tremendous drain on Leica’s resources that such features would demand, whereas the AI listed features is in line with what I’ve seen Leica do for years and that would involve slow iterations of technologies and components. I would love to see a breakthrough viewing system that modernizes what I had in the X100, but that, likely, wouldn’t make sense to the folks that manage R&D budgets at Leica.
This board is far more tolerant of diverse opinion than over at a European Leica board where censorship is not only tolerated, but practiced regularly. I removed my post to protect members from deciding for themselves if such a post helped to better center the discussion around what is likely vs what we could imagine. That is what I saw in this AI answer to my query.
It was also suggested that what I did was simply me being lazy. Ok, fair enough, but I thought it was me being curious as to what might be found that I wasn’t aware of. Could we agree that should I have posted a YouTube link where the YouTuber was providing their opinion would also be lazy? Maybe, but then again, I appreciate the resource that someone found valuable and I can then either watch it, or not and form my own opinion as to the value of the video.
...Show more →
I appreciate you made it clear it was AI and it was your intent to add a summary of the findings so far.
This kind of what people call AI, though, is merely a tool that scoops up information already published without any understanding of the value or correctness of that information. Maybe people learned something new, but I didn’t. Even then, since all the information that’s public is a rumor, it doesn’t add value. It just seems to validate the rumors. Most likely, AI is also adding our comments to its data and, as we know, our comments aren’t based on facts.
So, nothing against you. And nothing against the right use of AI. But these large language models just allow us to tap into an enormous amount of stuff without the model being able to distinguish between what’s right and what’s wrong. I’ve done AI searches on stuff I know something about and in some cases it perpetuates false information. Garbage in, garbage out still applies and there is not enough focus on the validity of the information that goes in.
Overall, I find it ironic that we increasingly seem to rely on these new models while we all probably have encountered issues with faulty GPS instructions, even after that technology has now been around for decades.
I’m fine with humans commenting on what they expect and want, but at least I know they’re just guessing.
|
)
