Technology

Did you enjoy humans spouting bullshit faster than humans can debunk it? Well, brace for impact because here comes machine-generated bullshit! Wooooeee'refucked! 🥳

Your statement is technically true but wrong in practice. Because your statement applies to EVERYTHING on the Internet. We had tons of error ridden garbage articles written by underpaid interns long before AI.

And no, fact checking is quicker than writing something from scratch. Just like verifying Wikipedia sources is quicker than writing a Wikipedia article.

A-MEN. well put. I wouldn't make so many words, I'd just settle for "Fuck LLMs and fuck the dipshits who label it AI or think it has anything to do with AI."

The cost however is not the same. I can totally see the occasional lawsuit as the cost of doing business for a company that employs AI.

Okay, yes I agree with you fully, but you can't just say it's a mathematical law without proof, that's something you need to back up with numbers and I don't think "work" is quantifiable.

Again, yes, they need to slow down, but I have an issue with your claim unless you're going to be backing it up. Otherwise you're just a crazy dude standing on a soapbox

I can see how it might be seen as more facile to correct/critique than to produce the original work. This is actually true, same as how its easier to iterate on something than to wholesale create the thing.

Definitely find it easier to extend or elaborate on something "old" over crapping out a new thing, altho I can see how that is not always the case if its too "legacy". ChatGPT is intriguing because it can arguably modularly generate many of the parts, you would just need to glue them together properly and ensure all the outputs are cohesive and coherent

For example: if you're a lawyer and you generate anything, you must at the very least

1. Read, not dictate
2. Ensure all caselaw cited a) definitely exists and b) is relevant to the facts and arguments they are being used to support

I think it's worse than that. The work is about the same. The skill and pay for that work? Lower.

Why pay 10 experienced journalists when you can pay 10 expendable fact checkers who just need to run some facts/numbers by a Wikipedia page?

the other big thing is that once it does start spouting bullshit or even just finds a phase or string of words, its so hard to get it out, you really just have to start over your instance or purge the memory, they get the obsession so easily sometimes without like sacrificing relevancy to the topic entirely

Sure, very sophisticated LLM’s might get it right some of the time, or even a lot of the time in the cases of very specific topics with very good training data. But its accuracy cannot be guaranteed unless you fact-check 100% of its output.

You will only guarantee what you answer for.

Since they have power to make it so, they own the good part and disown the bad part.

It's the warfare logic, the collateral damage of FAB-1500 is high, but it makes even imps in the hell tremble when dropped.

And to be treated more gently you need a different power balance. Either make them answer to you, or cut them out. You can't cut out a bombardment, though, and with the TRON project in Japan MS specifically have already shown that they are willing and able to use lobbying to force themselves onto you.

Of course, the end goal of these schemes is to be able to fire as much of the human staff as possible, so it ultimately winds up that there is nobody left to actually do the review. And whatever emaciated remains of management are left don’t actually understand how the machine works nor how its output is generated.

Reminiscent of the Soviet "they imitate pay, we imitate work" thing. Or medieval kings with reducing the metal percentages in coins. The modern Web is not very transparent, and the income is ad-driven, so it's not immediately visible how generated bullshit isn't worth nearly as much as something written by a human.

What I'm trying to say is that the way it's interconnected and amortized this Web is going down as a whole, and not just people poisoning it for short-term income.

This is intentional, they don't want to go down alone, and when more insularity exists, such people go down and others don't. Thus they've almost managed to kill that insularity. This will still work the same good old evolutionary way, just slower.

Llms are useful for recalling from a fixed corpus where you dictate they cite their source.

They are ideal for human in the loop research solutions.

The whole "answer anything about anything" concept is dumb.

Simply false in my experience.

We use CoPilot at work and there is no babysitting required.

We are software developers / engineers and it’s saves countless hours writing boilerplate code, giving code blocks based on a comment, and sticking to our coding conventions.

Sure it isn’t 100% right, but the owner and lead engineer calculates it to be around 70% accurate and even if it misses the mark, we have a whole lot less key presses to make.

Always, always, always. This is a mathematical law.

Total bullshit. We use LLMs at work for tasks that would be nearly impossible and require obscene amounts of manpower to do by hand.

Yes we have to check the output, but its not even close to the amount of work to do it by hand. Like, by orders of magnitude.

I disagree with the "always" bit. At some point in the future AI is actually going to get to the point where we can basically just leave it to it, and not have to worry.

But I do agree that we are not there yet. And that we need to stop pretending that we are.

Having said that my company uses AI for a lot of business critical tasks and we haven't gone bankrupt yet, of course that's not quite the same as saying that a human wouldn't have done it better. Perhaps we're spending more money than we need to because of the AI, who knows?

Personally I think it will be quite entertaining.

That being said, I'm not american

And now I’m reading a computer’s version of a story describing how a computer wrote a story that should have been discarded.