sucks to be stupid

This is probably relative. A lot of people (smarter and not so smart) got hooked on it because of how accessible and convient it is to just ask AI any question and get it spit an answer in seconds. However, there does seem to be a catch - after some time you feel emptiness / void because of how hollow it is. You don’t seem to need to do a research anymore and critically evaluate the options.

So lazy and stupid?

I’m going to always say this. Only stupid and dumb people love LLM because it helps them feel smart and artistic.

Hey now, I’m stupid and hate LLMs.

There are dozens of us! Dozens!

Well there’s also the stupidity of not being able to figure out how to remove the “watermarks” from the generated text…

I’m assuming you think the watermarks are just some hidden characters or something that you can see or remove by pasting into notepad?

Tbh anyone who asks Ai questions and then doesn’t fact check it was never smart. And if you have to fact check it, why not just do the research to begin with and skip the middleman?

Trying to prove this point to myself and others, I asked Claude to tell me how to add a drain line for a robot vacuum to the wash room sink.

Claude told me to drill a hole into the trap arm and add the line there. Which would, in case you’re not aware, be the worst place to put it. You never do this.

Drain lines get added to the tail pipe coming down from the sink, because if you add it to the trap arm (from the p-trap to the wall) you bypass the water seal keeping sewer gasses from infiltrating your home.

Weird Al - Dare to be stupid

The single “code crimes” went way harder than it had any right to!

that’s the great thing about privacy - its none of ya business

If AI users don’t come out the stigma will never go away.

Then don’t fucking use it you dumb lazy shit and use whatever little grey matter you have left.

That’s the issue. It’s someone else’s fault, always. It requires a substantial amount of grey matter to accept personal responsibility, e.g. “I fucked up”. It was me, who made a mistake. When we make a mistake we downgrade to our lowest, most childish behavior, to deceive, lie and cheat, just so we are not in trouble.

Some people never ever ever ask the question to themselves “Did my actions cause harm to another?”. Their self-importance is too great for that. The maximum I can ever hope for, with the current state of humanity is, they’ll think about it, but throw in a nice excuse. Usually “But I was stressed/busy/angry when I did it”. And that makes it okay.

So, sadly, it requires a lot of grey matter to not use it. Mainly because of humankind’s inability to accept personal responsibility, not because a clanker contains some unobtainable information.

It should be watermarked. Credit for answers should go to what generated the answers. If it’s not you, well, now it’s not so easy to be a lying sack of shit.

Credit who provided the info in the first place, not the ‘ai’ that spat it out.

The underlying problem. It’s a moocher circle jerk.

Oh shit, Claude has enough credits to graduate with tens of thousands of degrees from hundreds of universities? All around a C-B average, weird.

Even more! In the EU it has to be marked/identified as AI generated, if you publish it anywhere (not that it’s enforced much yet, but competitors might/will sue if it’s used in a company setting). I think this should be adopted world wide (although fat chance, I know)…

I’d be more concerned with how similar the method sounds to glassworm

i find it funny how some users tried to argue that they did most of the work. it doesnt matter if you did most of the work, everyone as students were supposed to learn to cite your sources. even if you just used claude to reorganize info, theres no reason why you would be against watermarking it unless you wanted to hide the fact you used claude.

Using the ai to help find the answers… ok. Using the ai to provide the answers… not ok. You still have to pull up the references or links it gives you and do the research.

Using the ai to help find the answers…

I think this is one of many reasons why search engines became so bad so that using AI could be promoted instead. I have turned to using AI for searching because of it.

I turned to it 2022ish, bingai at the time was the best for finding sources, google was already rough because of promotion and seo shenanigans

Absolutely. You use soemthing like startpage or dogpile and it’s night and fucking day to anything that uses google or google services. Yes i include ddg.

except that those links are increasingly pointing to slop content anyway. Even scientific papers.

On you to learn how to do good dd and weed out the seo slop, ai and/or human made

While I can appreciate that it’s not a good thing to let AI do your work for you (not just laziness but hallucinations), I can see this is only going to encourage cheaters to use competitors to Claude.

Like Deepseek.

This won’t work - you can always use a dumber, open model to rephrase and remove the watermark. All this does is marketing for anthropic, which I see most people are buying. Gives you a false impression you will easily be able to figure out if it’s done by AI, which it is not. Liars are still gonna lie, cheaters still gonna cheat.

Sure, but they need the watermarking to later claim the copyright on the stuff that people do create in the open with their agents.

“They would never do that!”

“And even if they did, I would sue them, and then the justice system would…”

“uh… uh oh”

My tinfoil head tells me they don’t want to ingest their own slop for training. But this only helps them if others do the same. Data poisoning is a real problem for llm future.

Also a very good point!

Here’s the support page from Anthropic. Another win from the EU, that’s great! Really curious to read the technical paper about the detection.

all of them are just admitting that they’re embarrassed about it. of course, they don’t know that because claude never told them.