Gonna copy pasta one of my previous comments because it’s relevant again:
I’m going to argue that how you use the lying machine determines if it’s slop, not if you use it.
“Generate a character profile for Alexander the blacksmith.” Slop.
“Ask me questions about Alexander the blacksmith so I can further develop his character.” Not slop.
“Summarize everything I explained about Alexander the blacksmith in the format of a wiki article.” Could be slop, might not be, depends on how diligent you were about not letting the lying machine have creative control. Needs to be reviewed for accuracy of course.
And for the record, I was a DM for years before generative ai was a thing. Running a campaign is ton of work, even with shortcuts. Don’t insult your DM like this.
I’m going to argue that how you use the lying machine determines if it’s slop, not if you use it
Which is ironic of Lemmy to agree with OP because it is also here in Lemmy, where i learned about making the correct prompt to get the best out of AI!
You will not survive the winter.
Slop is slop no matter how you use it.
There should be a way to acknowledge two things being true at the same time, but that way was never discovered on Lemmy.
“AI is mostly bad” and “AI can be useful at times” are both true statements. You sacrifice nothing by acknowledging both, and thinking you have to pick between the two is, ironically, mentally lazy af.
Using it as a tool to speed up your own work is completely different from passing off its work as yours or using it to do someone else’s work
Right… do you think I disagree?
Just additive
Because utilitarians are amoral. In fact, the AI ethics “intellectuals” are usually utilitarians, as seen with “Longtermism” and “Effective Altruism.”
You need to realize that your stance is not going to be enough.
But utilitarianism is a moral system. How can it be amoral…? Its by definition a moral system. You could put fort the argument that it can sometimes reach immoral conclusions, but calling it amoral is just… mixing things up at best and being disingenuous at worse.
Pointing to a moral horizon in the future where things “balance out” is a tool to dismiss moral distinctions in the current, lived context.
Are you seriously considering people on the internet should start acknowledging nuance? Smh.
I just want to be angry and right - and personally insult you; even though I know nothing about you outside of a sentence or two that I just read.
I know right? Get a load of that guy. Nuance. psh, shaw. This is the internet! We only do extremes and horny posting round these parts!
Most people agree that there are legitimate applications for LLM technology, like in the medical field. This comes up every single thread.
Then you have trillions of dollars of investment on the promise of eroding worker power, and letting capital enunciate itself without labour. That’s what it’s essentially all for.
The “legitimate” uses of the technology are not even a passing concern for investors except insofar as they can point to it to excuse their grift.
You say most people believe this, but I see many people every day for weeks now claiming Linux is vibecoded now. Why? Three stories: 1) months ago LLM use was not outright banned in kernel development 2) Linus admitted to using LLMs in an experimental branch to find and patch bugs 3) a recent shift in attitude happened, toward LLM-driven PRs because there were too many, and the reaction from Linus and the other maintainers was to raise the bar for submitting PRs to reduce the chance of slop wasting people’s time.
All of this was a series of level headed responses and course corrections which at no time was indicative of anything more than LLMs are useful sometimes. Yet people all over Lemmy are saying shit like “Linux is all in on vibecoding”. Besides that issue, I’ve seen and been involved in many conversations where idiots will say that any use of AI is super unethical and unacceptable. The binary thinking on this issue is strong on here.
Ah well I agree I would Linux love maintainers to take a more principled stance against LLM contributions given all the negative externalities of the technology as it exists today.
there’s a strong case to be made that there is no way to use the current “frontier” models ethically because of how they were trained and who their patrons are. I would love to see that acknowledged.
By that logic most media consumption is unethical. Almost anything out of a major studio is made with the abuse of, underpayment of, and often even outright theft from small artists. I think a much better solution than not using them is to take all the money they made from it and redistribute it as universal basic income, then make the models 100% free to use. Cat’s outta the bag, at this point I just wanna see the little guy get paid.
The models aren’t making money and they aren’t going to, though.
What is the legitimate use for LLMs in the medical field?
Like medical research, discovering drugs, folding proteins. There’s also evidence they can be used to help analyse x-rays.
LLMs don’t do those things. Do you know what an LLM is?
“Asbestos is extremely toxic” and “asbestos can be useful and irreplacable at times” are both true. So are “lead is poisonous” and “tetraetillead is an effective anti-knocking agent, lead in solder stops tin whiskers from forming, and lead paint is pretty”.
Also that’s how racism got normalized again, after getting closer to putting it back into the cemetery of history. And so is every LGBTQ±phobia you can name. Or even better: the tobacco industry, the alcohol industry, and the gambling industry all promote “responsible use” of their products.
I think LLM is more like weed though, if we are making an apt metaphor.
MJ is useful in many ways, has medically recognized therapeutic benefits, is fun recreationally. But, it is unadvised to habitually use it all day, and can be harmful if you do.
For both LLMs and marijuana it’s not the use of it that is bad, because there are positives, it’s the over use and abuse of it.
I didn’t go through 8 years of grueling computer science and engineering education to ask an AI to do my fucking job.
Yeah, thats what interns are for!
But your a cyborg. Wouldn’t asking an AI just be like asking your pet dog to do a trick here?
That’s racist
Why use lot thought when few thought do trick?
Me big smart use less
I’d rather have someone tell me that they’re literally into shit than that they’re an AI “artist”
Two girls one cup fan?
Letting insinuate the initiative is on robot? but in reality, you need to order or command it to brainstorm right? not to mention answering back for clarity and feedback. Opposite of cuck who have no choice in that matter ?
OK so it’s like you’re chilling in the cuck chair but every once in a while you make a suggestion to the bull on how to plow your wife.
Honestly that’s even worse. It’s just kind of sad. You might be able to retain some dignity by sitting in the cuck chair looking indignant but this is being an active participant in your own obsolescence.
You do know that cuckold kink they don’t just quietly sit in the corner right? They’re a participant
What a wonderful image, might set it as a desktop background at work.
I just use DDG image search. Started drawing a bit recently and use online images as a starting point sometimes.
Planning on carving a board game on a wooden board, same rules as the game of Ur but possibly going with a different theme for decorating the board. Anglo-Saxon runes, axes and round shields. Been drawing them on paper as a planning stage and to practice as I would draw the outline on wood before carving it.
Why do they only draw the unicorns female. I’ve never seen unicorn dong.
That’s not a unicorn. It’s a whatever Pegasus is.
Why do they only draw the
pegasusespterippi female. I’veneverseenpegasuspterippi dong.Edit: s/pegasus/pterippus/, and also in researching the correct terminology I have now seen Pegasus dong. I did not want to see that.
I’m sure a pegging gag could be inserted here.
That’s because you’re unattractive to unicorns.
This hurt my self esteem more than I ever expected it could
:(
Yo if you want to see unicorn dong, derpibooru has your back. Plenty of unicorn dong everywhere
if you’d like to change that, e621 has tons of examples.
Funfact, for horse releated things derpibooru is strictly speaking just e621 but better.
The bronies do NOT fuck around.
Oh my. You weren’t kidding. I searched unicorn and yeah, teems of examples.
Also interesting...
Lots of examples of furry art with equine-anatomically-correct dong. Animal genitals on anthos is a common red line for platforms that are furry-tolerant but not furry-friendly.
I fucking love e621, almost anything is allowed, and if you don’t want to see something then just put that tag in your blocklist. The tagging system is robust as fuck, and bad tagging (like you’d see on literally every other platform) is socially unacceptable.
i spend at least 2 hours a day fixing tags…
FIX YOUR TAGS PEOPLE. SO THE PEOPLE USING BLACKLISTS DONT HAVE TO SEE SHIT THEY DONT WANT TO SEE.
Reminder: the term “bouncing off ideas” was pushed by AI evangelists to get artists to use chatbots.
But like… in a bad way.
You brainstorm with the robot. Like you brainstorm with a rubber duck.
The rubber duck doesn’t feed back anything that might affect how you think. It’s more like brainstorming with someone who is both sycophantic and has their own (unthought-though) ideas about how you should do it. At best it’s a waste of tokens because a rubber duck would have worked, at worst it directs your thought process rather than letting you think.
it’s brainstorming with a rubber duck that has the word “yes” written on it
So when I brainstorm with a person, they are never confidently wrong? And they never have their own ideas on how I should do it.
The assertion was the brainstorming with an LLM was like brainstorming with a rubber duck. It is not, as I’ve outlined in another comment.
Brainstorming with another person can also lead to biases, you’re correct, but your partner is less likely to just agree with your ideas, or to have built in biases that you’re not aware of.
I dont know what magical humans you interact with. But the claim someone else doesn’t have a bias you may not be aware of… is fucking wild. People are wildly complex and the chances of you even REMOTELY understanding a fraction of their biases or thought processes with out extreme amounts of exposure and discussion with them is comical at best.
An LLM is infinitely more predictable and obvious in its biases then a human.
I will 100% agree on the people are less likely to just agree with you. Unless they really do not give a shit about the work at hand but then its really obvious.
Are you so easily manipulated or why do you think that is always the case?
Everything has the potential of influencing how you think, it is on you how you let that affect you.
LMs also work for that. If there is somebody who just accepts everything the software puts out, that is a problem with the person.
Critical thinking should always be applied no matter where information comes from. But I guess critical thinking is on the downtrend, measured by the amount of people spinning up one scenario in their head, arguing based on just that while ignoring every other possible conclusions.
Brainstorming solo versus brainstorming in a group are very different activities. Your assertion was that brainstorming with an LLM, which feeds back more-or-less like another participant, was the same as brainstorming with a rubber duck, i.e. solo, which it is not.
Brainstorming solo is an exercise in fully exploring your understanding of a subject, and developing new insights or approaches to it. Brainstorming as a group is more about finding a consensus solution or approach. Doing so with an LLM is much closer to the latter, however your “partner” has no actual experience but still presents feedback as though it did, and, critically, has an inbuilt tendancy to confirm your biases. Thinking of that like either solo or group brainstorming will automatically warp your thought processes by encouraging you to stay on certain tracks.
A rubber duck doesn’t lie to you and stroke your ego off
I’d much rather be sitting in a cuck chair directing a robot to fuck somebody I have no interest in fucking myself.
Having no interest in thinking is kinda sad
Things are sad… let him huff glue, hater.
Okay but have you considered I don’t care how I get my job done as long as the paycheck keeps coming.
Okay but have you considered the brain is a muscle that needs exercise to stay healthy and functional and offloading “thinking” makes your brain weaker?
Okay but have you considered I only apply my brain to fun and exciting problems, and the ones at work get the clanker?
Just like you use the rest of your muscles only for fun and exciting tasks.
wanking, naturally
Yeah fuck the planet!
You use your brain at work? Ppffff. Overachiever.
Yeah, why would I train my brain repeatedly, for the majority of my life to ponder on and create almost exclusively on corporate bullshit that enriches other people? I’m thinking the bare minimum at work and getting my brain work maximized on my days and hours off. I’m not conditioning that fucker to be an office drone, I’m conditioning it to be a fireman astronaut inventor artist dog walker like 5 year old me wanted.
Of course, that’s why I sum my spreadsheets by hand with pen and paper and then enter the total back into the sheet
Using software versus typing in “do the whole thing for me” has some differences, maybe a little nuance is an important thing here. Maybe…
You jest but I’ve seen people do this because they didn’t want to use their brain to discover the most basic functions of excel
Exercise yes. Daily 8hr forced deathmarch, not so much.
Do you tell yourself that as you get out your compass and paper maps on the way to a new city.
Land navigation is an important skill. You wouldn’t let such an important skill atrophy would you?
Honestly, navigation is an insanely satisfying skill to work on. Navigation without GPS fills an instinctual bucket that makes no sense to me. Letting it atrophy is a big failure in becoming a functioning adult imo.
I actually agree, I just feel it’s the same hyperbolic argument every time a new technology makes something else (situationally) obsolete.
Knowing how live off the land was once common. It can still be useful. It is even fun for some (to learn, if not do). Yet… Here we are with a vast majority of our population devoid of those skills. It will keep happening.
This is complicated by the fact that to gain advantage (or just maintain relevance) in a complex and changing society, you need to be learning the new skills that leverage new technology. Yet systems become more complex, specialized roles are needed, and we simply can’t learn it all.
Enter the database of all information and a technology capable of quickly searching and extracting information with relevant context. Learn to use it to your advantage, or don’t…
I think its more, roles that didn’t need specialty skills are being removed by a very dumb tool that dumb people think is amazing. It seems amazing if you dont understand the thing you are asking it to do.
Living off the land is a great example. I grow ~10% of my food in a large garden, mostly tomatos, apples, pears, and peppers. Most people dont know how hard and specialized it is to do this. When we lost power for a week 2 years ago, we were totally fine. Provided food to our neighbors, no issues. Because of our time spent learning how to grow and preserve food.
I’d argue allowing the offloading of the simple specializations AI can handle makes an overall more useless person.
it’s not atrophy if it never existed.
I say this about anything with a motor in it. My muscles are muscles that need exercise to stay healthy and functional, offloading “work” makes my gainz weaker.
The brain is a muscle… really? I wonder where you heard that. Probably a person. Maybe you should fact check that with AI next time.
Noone says that asking a person a question is offloading their thinking. But if you ask AI it is? How does that work?
Uhh… there is an entire sterotype of the sort of people that offload their thinking to others and have been made fun of for it for god… most of history?
The yes-man, lemming, weathervane, sheep, npc, doormat. The list goes on and on. Its been called a load of crap though the ages. But never thinking and just doing what your told or offloading your entire thinking load to others. IS VERY much a thing. LONG before ai.
You seem to be confused. Yes-men were often rather smart. They said yes in a ploy to get what they wanted, like a promotion and higher pay.
Lemmings, sheep and such weren’t necessarily not thinking, they are drawn to being part of a social group and follow it for a sense of belonging. They often spend a lot of time thinking about how to stay part of the group.
Doormats are people who avoid confrontation, and again, they think about it a lot, but find themselves unable to stand up to it.
There are of course people who just have low IQ. But I assume you aren’t belittling them for using AI to help them do what they can’t.
have you considered the brain is a muscle
Kinda undermines your point when you start with a completely untrue statement.
It’s a metaphor
This is something I’m currently struggling with at a new job. The product they’ve crafted is fundamentally linked to AI, insomuch as I literally can’t get the data without prompting.
I’m doing my best to “do difficult things” outside of work to compensate, and I can only hope that’s enough
I recommend getting into Cryptic Crosswords. They give me my cogitation fix. The Youtube channel Cracking The Cryptic has a great masterclass series to get into them, and Minute Cryptic is a good way to dip your toe into the hobby.
It’s funny you say that. It was while doing a regular crossword that just for a millisecond I thought to myself, “Hey I bet Claude could answer that”, that I felt such disgust.
as the paycheck keeps coming.
How are you not comprehending yet that the reason investors are investing in those datacenters and models is because the shared business goal is to eliminate jobs for humans (so they can get all the profit of the business)??
Could we get the message across without the kink-shaming?
No. It is required. (seriously, why is everything being shoe-horned into “kink shaming”?)
Why is everyone being shoe-horned into defending this post in any respect?
No. There are way too many kinks and it becomes a constraint on discourse.
That completely disregards the humiliation fetishists. Way to kink shame.
