[SilverRed]

No it isn't a failed idea at all. The products out today are remarkably useful even if not perfect. I have tested out the google lens thing on google photos and it is astounding.

I took a photo of the water pump from a car windscreen wiper and google was able to correctly identify what it was. I took a photo of a generic PCB which showed the back of a driver board for an LCD and google was able to bring up the exact type of board it was with the names of the ICs on it.

In these examples, google photos ai has far exceeded what the average human can achieve. We just have to keep in mind that these systems are not perfect and only a best guess which should be verified by a person later.

The problem here is not that the mistake was very costly or disruptive to the function of the feature, but that the mistake was highly offensive which is something very hard to avoid.

[silisili]

The problems it solved for you are immensely useful to you, but not remarkable IMO.

The problem it's solving is that it can do things that somebody with zero experience cannot. If you had an auto parts pro, or an EE, they probably could have done the same for you.

So, in general, AI is helpful because it has a much larger breadth of knowledge. Granted.

But I want examples of it doing depth, too.

My wife uses Lens when we fish. It's way, way worse than a fisherman with any experience at all.

[SilverRed]

Regardless, it is still far beyond a "failed idea" since it provides genuine value and achieves at a higher level than the average human for many topics. It isn't as you say better than an expert but the fact that for free I get something that works well is remarkable to me considering this is cutting edge technology.

[silisili]

Please read my premise again. I only called it a failed idea in the sense it could act as well as a human brain.

I said it's not a waste. Not at all, I use it in a lot of the ways you describe.