dude had already swallowed the tech bs, thinks ai is the furthest advancement of technology when it can’t compete with ancient tech. literally can’t do what a calculator can do reliably. or a timer. or a calendar.
Please let’s try to keep generative AI from claiming the entire word “AI”.
Current generative AI is good at and built for mimicking patterns with boundary conditions.
This means it does a decent job of imitating authoritative knowledge, but it’s just mimicking it.
People are hyped for it because it looks knowledgeable, it’s relatively simple to make, and a lot of what we do is text based so it’s easy to apply.
There are a lot of other types of AI, the majority even, that work significantly better, take a small fraction of the computing power and provide helpful and meaningful results. They just don’t look like anything other than complex math, which is all any of them are in the end.
A calculator, timer or calendar can’t help me write an essay. You are comparing tools meant for different tasks. At least build your argumentets on something reasonable.
Resource intense auto correct that does not understand the information it’s stringing together should not be used to write anything academically or professionally.
If you don’t want to use all the tools at your desposal, that’s your choice. If I had a tool that could help me formulate my text into the proper tense and help me use words most suited for a academic setting, why should I not use it? Did you know that writing a paper is part of university stuides, English major or not?
Or do you not understand how to use an LLM? Do you think that one just prompts it and use whatever it produces? That is just as stupid as entering random number into a calculator, excpect it to calculate what you wanted and then say ”caluclators are bad because it gave the wrong answer”.
Then stop dismissing other people’s “argumentets”. Unfortunately, most AI proponents don’t realize that the AI use case that is being pushed by it’s makers and owners is not “a tool to assist users”, but “a tool for executives to replace humans”. Is it a dumb proposal? absolutely. It doesn’t reduce the moral responsibility of those promoting AI. They are supporting the destruction of people’s livelihoods to make the wealthiest human being in history slightly wealthier, and curse knowledge workers to poverty just like factory workers were in their time by the exact same political and economic class of soulless pricks.
If the argument want as you have laid it out, I would not dismiss it. But I cannot do that when the arguemnt is ”hammers in general are bad because I cannot use them to drive to work” or ”also your essay fucking sucks. learn to put together a coherent thought instead of relying on a glorified autocorrect that doesn’t have them at all to do it for you”. That second one is an actual quote.
What you bring up is how a few people is power are using AI to increase their wealth without regards for human suffering. I agree that what they are doing is wrong. And the discussion should be about how AI affects our society, how it is used and who controls it. This does not make AI a bad tool, it makes it a tool that can used in a bad way to cause a lot of harm.
“If the argument want as you have laid it out, I would not dismiss it.”
Your autocorrect software is failing you.
What is your argument? It is OK for a few people to hurt others, since you personally are benefiting, in a very small way, from the cruelty? That’s a shit argument to make.
If AI is “just a tool”, then how come it doesn’t do any of the things it is promised to do? The issue is not expecting “a hammer to drive to work”. The problem is that LLMs makers promised a car, you order one, and receive a screwdriver on the mail. Because “screwdrivers are just a tool, you can use it to assemble a car”. It’s a scam, it is fraud, it is lying and stealing from others to capitalize on bad tech.
If AI is just a tool, its an unethical and immoral tool.
I’m trying to say that one should call a fraud a fraud, not a bad screwdriver.
You want to have a discussion about the fraud? Don’t say that screwdriver suck, say that it did not do what is was advertised to do.
It is OK for a few people to hurt others, since you personally are benefiting, in a very small way, from the cruelty?
Want to discuss the technical qualities of napalm?
I mean, it’s obviously not a “bad” tool of warfare, it’s just the bad people who use it. It obviously is a separate issue from war crimes committed with it, there’s nothing inherently wrong with napalm.
This idea that technology must be evaluated on a vacuum, disconnected from the context that created and uses it, is disingenuous at best and malicious at its worst. Technology, tools, inventions, carry with them the moral and ethical burden of their historical context.
LLMs as we know them today, came to be from massive theft, and continue to promote their own use and improvement with further thievery, fraud and lies. The fraud is not a separate topic, it’s intrinsically a part of LLMs. To speak of LLMs is to speak about fraud, copyright infringement and theft. They cannot exist without theft, at least not in their current level of prowess and use. To defend them is to promote corporate crimes on a billion dollars and worldwide scale. This is just one of the many axis of analysis that concludes with, “AI is a bad tool, actually”.
I wonder why anyone would want an “AI girlfriend” or whatever ridiculous thing tech bros are trying to shoehorn monetization into to capitalize on the pervasive disconnect in society today.
And then, when I read a post like yours, referring to someone like that, it all suddenly makes sense. Given the choice, I’d also rather spend time with unthinking silicon than an asshole who talks to people like you do.
funny how it’s not “intelligent” enough to say “hey I don’t really do math” and instead feeds me bullshit that I have to correct and then it’ll say “oh yeah totally right sorry here’s the actual answer that I wouldn’t have given if you hadn’t corrected me as the one who asked the question”
also your essay fucking sucks. learn to put together a coherent thought instead of relying on a glorified autocorrect that doesn’t have them at all to do it for you.
funny how it’s not “intelligent” enough to say “hey I don’t really do math”
From what I understand, that is how OpenAI has decided to make their LLM and not an inherit property of LLMs, but I could you be wrong.
also your essay fucking sucks
Did you read it?
learn to put together a coherent thought instead of relying on a glorified autocorrect that doesn’t have them at all to do it for you.
I’ll take a guess here. You think I had the LLM write my essey for me. You also think I used it to correct my spelling.
I already have other software that can help me with my spelling, so that was not needed. I wrote my whole essey first, because actually doing myself is faster and gives a better result than trying to prompt an AI to do it, at least for me.
What I did do was feed my text into an LLM to see how I could improve the structure of my text, how tense could be used correctly and if any words that I used could be changed for a better substitute. All of those are things that I could do myself, but I had an excellent tool to help me with it so I used it.
Not using it would be just as stupid as not using a software to correct spelling becuase it might get the spelling wrong.
I think you do not understand how to get the most out of an LLM or you are using it wrong. Or both.
dude had already swallowed the tech bs, thinks ai is the furthest advancement of technology when it can’t compete with ancient tech. literally can’t do what a calculator can do reliably. or a timer. or a calendar.
Please let’s try to keep generative AI from claiming the entire word “AI”.
Current generative AI is good at and built for mimicking patterns with boundary conditions.
This means it does a decent job of imitating authoritative knowledge, but it’s just mimicking it.
People are hyped for it because it looks knowledgeable, it’s relatively simple to make, and a lot of what we do is text based so it’s easy to apply.
There are a lot of other types of AI, the majority even, that work significantly better, take a small fraction of the computing power and provide helpful and meaningful results. They just don’t look like anything other than complex math, which is all any of them are in the end.
A calculator, timer or calendar can’t help me write an essay. You are comparing tools meant for different tasks. At least build your argumentets on something reasonable.
Take an English class you illiterate gremlin.
Resource intense auto correct that does not understand the information it’s stringing together should not be used to write anything academically or professionally.
If you don’t want to use all the tools at your desposal, that’s your choice. If I had a tool that could help me formulate my text into the proper tense and help me use words most suited for a academic setting, why should I not use it? Did you know that writing a paper is part of university stuides, English major or not?
Or do you not understand how to use an LLM? Do you think that one just prompts it and use whatever it produces? That is just as stupid as entering random number into a calculator, excpect it to calculate what you wanted and then say ”caluclators are bad because it gave the wrong answer”.
Why argue with someone who isn’t intelligent enough to write their essays without mechanical assistance?
I want a more diverse discussion about LLM and AI, not the default ”AI bad” response that is so common here. :(
Then stop dismissing other people’s “argumentets”. Unfortunately, most AI proponents don’t realize that the AI use case that is being pushed by it’s makers and owners is not “a tool to assist users”, but “a tool for executives to replace humans”. Is it a dumb proposal? absolutely. It doesn’t reduce the moral responsibility of those promoting AI. They are supporting the destruction of people’s livelihoods to make the wealthiest human being in history slightly wealthier, and curse knowledge workers to poverty just like factory workers were in their time by the exact same political and economic class of soulless pricks.
If the argument want as you have laid it out, I would not dismiss it. But I cannot do that when the arguemnt is ”hammers in general are bad because I cannot use them to drive to work” or ”also your essay fucking sucks. learn to put together a coherent thought instead of relying on a glorified autocorrect that doesn’t have them at all to do it for you”. That second one is an actual quote.
What you bring up is how a few people is power are using AI to increase their wealth without regards for human suffering. I agree that what they are doing is wrong. And the discussion should be about how AI affects our society, how it is used and who controls it. This does not make AI a bad tool, it makes it a tool that can used in a bad way to cause a lot of harm.
Your autocorrect software is failing you.
What is your argument? It is OK for a few people to hurt others, since you personally are benefiting, in a very small way, from the cruelty? That’s a shit argument to make.
If AI is “just a tool”, then how come it doesn’t do any of the things it is promised to do? The issue is not expecting “a hammer to drive to work”. The problem is that LLMs makers promised a car, you order one, and receive a screwdriver on the mail. Because “screwdrivers are just a tool, you can use it to assemble a car”. It’s a scam, it is fraud, it is lying and stealing from others to capitalize on bad tech.
If AI is just a tool, its an unethical and immoral tool.
I’m trying to say that one should call a fraud a fraud, not a bad screwdriver.
You want to have a discussion about the fraud? Don’t say that screwdriver suck, say that it did not do what is was advertised to do.
That is not what I tried to say.
Want to discuss the technical qualities of napalm?
I mean, it’s obviously not a “bad” tool of warfare, it’s just the bad people who use it. It obviously is a separate issue from war crimes committed with it, there’s nothing inherently wrong with napalm.
This idea that technology must be evaluated on a vacuum, disconnected from the context that created and uses it, is disingenuous at best and malicious at its worst. Technology, tools, inventions, carry with them the moral and ethical burden of their historical context.
LLMs as we know them today, came to be from massive theft, and continue to promote their own use and improvement with further thievery, fraud and lies. The fraud is not a separate topic, it’s intrinsically a part of LLMs. To speak of LLMs is to speak about fraud, copyright infringement and theft. They cannot exist without theft, at least not in their current level of prowess and use. To defend them is to promote corporate crimes on a billion dollars and worldwide scale. This is just one of the many axis of analysis that concludes with, “AI is a bad tool, actually”.
I wonder why anyone would want an “AI girlfriend” or whatever ridiculous thing tech bros are trying to shoehorn monetization into to capitalize on the pervasive disconnect in society today.
And then, when I read a post like yours, referring to someone like that, it all suddenly makes sense. Given the choice, I’d also rather spend time with unthinking silicon than an asshole who talks to people like you do.
funny how it’s not “intelligent” enough to say “hey I don’t really do math” and instead feeds me bullshit that I have to correct and then it’ll say “oh yeah totally right sorry here’s the actual answer that I wouldn’t have given if you hadn’t corrected me as the one who asked the question”
also your essay fucking sucks. learn to put together a coherent thought instead of relying on a glorified autocorrect that doesn’t have them at all to do it for you.
From what I understand, that is how OpenAI has decided to make their LLM and not an inherit property of LLMs, but I could you be wrong.
Did you read it?
I’ll take a guess here. You think I had the LLM write my essey for me. You also think I used it to correct my spelling.
I already have other software that can help me with my spelling, so that was not needed. I wrote my whole essey first, because actually doing myself is faster and gives a better result than trying to prompt an AI to do it, at least for me.
What I did do was feed my text into an LLM to see how I could improve the structure of my text, how tense could be used correctly and if any words that I used could be changed for a better substitute. All of those are things that I could do myself, but I had an excellent tool to help me with it so I used it.
Not using it would be just as stupid as not using a software to correct spelling becuase it might get the spelling wrong.
I think you do not understand how to get the most out of an LLM or you are using it wrong. Or both.