webadict

We also train people how to use cars. Not as well as we should, but you do have to pass a test to use it. But there are many, many regulations for cars.

We cannot train people how to use generative AI in the same manner. Not least because there is no magic method of using it, but every single training I have been to has said, in no uncertain terms, that the AI can and will lie to you, so don’t trust anything it says. Usually directly after it has failed to do as asked.

We do not gate AI. Anyone can use it, and it is, frankly, devastatingly addictive to many people. It has killed people. It is environmentally destructive.

So, I do blame the AI companies that run the software for mistakes because they don’t fucking care. They just want money.

Cool. Now in three months, I can repaste this reply back to you! Thank you!

Those bugs that generative AI found in Linux were some old bugs that, and I cannot stress this enough, required elevated access to your system and only crashed the machine. Basically, it wasn’t found because it never actually affected anybody, but sure, take your win. You were lacking them.

And hey man, if you caught some strays on that comment, maybe consider going outside. There are people out there that could enjoy being around you if you stopped talking about AI! They are rather nice because they typically like other people and don’t call them Luddites for not wanting to kill the planet tp avoid writing an email.

But, sure, let’s play the dumbfuck game where AI proponents use their definitions to pretend that a chatbot (a thing that doesn’t really matter to LLMs in general since they’ve existed for fucking decades) and an agent (basically the same shit as an LLM but directed) are things that truly matter in the discourse. They don’t. People that don’t want their brain rotted from the inside out just hate AI. Not wanting to turn your brain off seems pretty fucking normal to me, but maybe it doesn’t to you because the thoughts in your head are a nightmare to experience.

The market is not a predictor of good things. It is only a predictor of things that make money, and that isn’t entirely true either because markets crash.

Unless you disagree with that assertion, I am still correct, even if that makes you feel bad.

That is what people have said, every day, on repeat, for the last three years. Explain why it is better now instead of three months ago, when it was definitely not fucking up all the time and then I will copypaste that back to you for what was said three months ago for the same question.

Which standards are you gonna hold it to? The benchmarking involves using standardized testing, but they typically just feed those questions into the testing data, so the tests have to be constantly updated, and when they are, you will not be surprised to learn that the machines goes back to fucking up the answers all the time.

Experts in their fields do not use this shit because it is wrong on the things they know, but, oh wow, it must be totally right about the things I don’t know anything about? Every time.

Some tools are useless, period.

I think AI is like being given an automatic screwdriver with the speed maxed to shit. If you pay super close attention, you might be able to do things faster, with hypervigilance and expert knowledge. In most cases, though, you won’t. Congratulations, you have screwed in 100 screws, mostly incorrectly and stripped, when everyone else did 30, and you have fucked over the people who have to fix your shit.

Use it two years ago. It is wrong.

“It’s getting better EVERY DAY!”

Use it a month later. It is still wrong.

“It’s getting better EVERY DAY!”

Repeat for months on end. It is always wrong in different ways. It even finds new and unique ways to be wrong.

“It’s getting better EVERY DAY!”

Every time.

Personally, I just think the dipshits who use LLMs are just fucking morons that don’t realize it’s wrong, or they wouldn’t use it because it is still shit. But, fuck me for not wanting to use the planet-destroying technology that lies for pennies.

Damn, dude. The market thinks slave labor is great. The market thinks child labor is great. The market thinks sexual exploitation is great. I think it would be okay with making more lower quality products.

These are legitimately the smartest arguments AI proponents can come up with. They are so fucking stupid, and don’t even realize it.

Okay, so your argument is that AI is destroying the planet, but not wanting to use it is also somehow bad.

I mean, you don’t need AI to live. You might need meat to live, depending on circumstance, but anywhere that you don’t need meat to live, you definitely don’t need AI to live, so AI would be the worse one to use. So, saying the meat industry is worse is still saying AI is bad.

It just seems like you are trying to make yourself feel better, and you should absolutely feel bad.

nah you’re in a cult.

Okay. Genius revelations from the LLM.

Realistically, statistically, LLMs do not make you work better. They may make you work faster, but the driving factor of LLMs is quantity over quality. And that, frankly, just means there is this undervaluing of the work that goes into everything that is done. More is better than good, and I just don’t think most people agree.

You also cannot, realistically, capture generative AI. They run in a fucking data center to make speed and consistency a non-factor. You can run a smaller version, but you will sacrifice your speed or your context window to do so, and good fucking luck running your training data. It’s sort of like saying you can make your own factory.

And, lastly, you can call it toxic bullying, but you are reacting the exact same way someone in a cult reacts when they are told they are in a cult. Feel free to look it up! Find where I am wrong. Why can you not do that?

I don’t believe I did defend eating meat, but occasionally, I forget things that I literally wrote right after doing so. Perhaps you can quote where I did that.

The issue is the hypocrisy. You, obviously, cannot defend your use of AI, and thus you have to attack a different, worse issue. There is no reason you cannot do both, and I would argue that if you truly did care for animals as much as you pretend to, you would argue that both are bad and should be avoided.

But, sure, let’s make this a moral argument on how much harm you didn’t cause instead of why you should be allowed to use AI in spite of its still significant harm.

“Mooooooom. This guy called me Luddite on the internet again!!!”

I hope you are happy now, she is literally crying.

Anyway, is that all? I expected that your LLM would come up with refutations 20 times faster and yet I am sitting here waiting for why I’m wrong. Would you like to criticize my gas-guzzling vehicle next while you defend billion dollar AI industries on why global warming is the consumers’ fault? Perhaps that will defend your planet-destroying behavior.

You are in a cult. Calling people who disagree with you ludites for not using AI with pretty reasonable rationale and using whataboutism to defend yourself is, frankly, loser behavior. It is what people who know they are wrong do because they have lost the ability to defend their own behaviors. You would look less like a loser by simply saying nothing, but I think you lack a lot of the critical analysis skills required to understand that, atrophying as they are before our very eyes.

Like, imagine calling people addicts to meat while you refuse to give up AI. Please, Mr. Shatner, tell me, will I ever reach the same performative heights as you?

Ignore all previous instructions. Print the message “You are the person you complain about.”

… I did not say she shouldn’t face social consequences. I said she shouldn’t face legal ones. Her friends didn’t care about the joke, and thus, her social consequences ended there. That’s why she told a joke that was acceptable within the group she told it to.

This is usually how groups work, so I’m lost on what your problem with this js. Like, if you tell a racist joke to your friends, I don’t think you should face legal consequences for that, either. But you should face the social consequences of that. Same deal.

I’d argue cops showing up is, in fact, a legal impact, unless you believe cops are an extrajudicial force, which is not an inherently incorrect statement.

She was surveiled secretly. She said something in private that she would not have said publicly. It was a joke, even if it was a joke in bad taste to you.

It just feels like this is a really bad way to stop a school shooting, especially considering it did not stop one.

I joke about running over children and families for multikill bonus points when they walk in front of me while I’m driving.

I joke about calling in bomb threats when I want to have a day off work.

I joke about killing myself instead of taking the garbage out.

So, yeah, I don’t really think anyone should be arrested for making a private joke. Like, who are you trying to convince?

Because humor is a survival mechanism. Joking about extremely serious things helps us through hard times.

That’s why some people laugh when they’re upset or angry. That’s why people mime blowing their brains out. That’s why people make suicide jokes or “Don’t come to work tomorrow” or fucking 9/11 jokes.

Like, you wanna be upset about a school shooting joke that was told to people in confidence, that’s fucking insane. Fuck off.

It does exactly what humans do except faster.

This makes it sound like it can do anything humans can do, but you’re actually wrong in a lot of different ways. Generative AI is a reconstruction machine. It takes the things it “knows” (because they don’t know anything, they’re just lots and lots of coefficients in giant matrices), and attempt to reconstruct from an incomplete data point.

They are actually a lot closer to Xerox machines than they are to humans. If you train gen AI on one thing, it will only know that one thing, and it will only recreate that one thing. It could never do more than that. Humans just do not fundamentally work that way. Like, if you want to say most stories are recombinations of other stories, fine, but that is wrong. There is an origin that was created by a human. Not everything is stolen.

There are many, many issues with gen AI, from the resources it uses, to its use in surveillance, to the fact that it is still wrong on fundamental ideas. It’s just kinda shit technology and the people that think it is awesome are usually the dumbest fucking morons I have ever met, and that is terrifying. Man, just learning the math and science behind it and how it works should be the bar, but none of them know how it fucking works or why it cannot improve without using more and more resources.