Lmao.
I can’t even think of anything they do other than ban assault weapons and implement red flag laws. They just usually say “sensible gun reform”, and, like, everyone agrees with that, so I just don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Legitimately, the only time I hear about Dems attacking guns is when there’s a fucking election and Republicans and gun manufacturers claim they’ll take your guns away. I’m still waiting on Obama to take my guns.
It’s a computer, so it can’t be non-binary.
I have seen every ML/LLM translation be shit, so if you want to point to a less shitty version, whatever. It will not matter to me because every AI translation given to me was god fucking awful versus even a shitty human translation because humans, in their flawed yet understandable ways, do not translate things in arbitrary ways, nor do they make the same types of mistakes that an AI does. Humans understand how humans think, and the process of writing a sentence vs a paragraph vs a chapter vs a book are just… Different? But an AI just won’t understand those differences. Not to any noticeable effect. Nor do they understand nuances in writing and dialog. They just write or do a sarcasm thing, and that’s the entirety of their repertoire. That’s all they “know”.
Is it personally attacking you to point out that it is a monstrous thing to use AI while it is pretty actively killing the planet or that it is using stolen labor to work and refuses to recompense said labor? Because to me, that’s just kinda how it is, and if you can’t see the issues in that, it does sort of imply someone failed you at some point.
If it is catching that many bugs, you are writing shit code or your review system blows. Likely both. The AI is about as likely to flag real bugs as it is to flag made up shit, but I still have to waste my fucking time verifying and proving the bot wrong. And you know what it didn’t do? Save me time. Because I had to verify everything it said for no fucking reason.
And my fucking god, don’t let it generate Tests. You get the worst Asserts imaginable. Goddamn. If you aren’t writing your unit tests, then you won’t know what you are testing.
Also, AI-based translation is hilariously awful. Like, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the translation was technically correct (a thing that is not even mostly true), it will always underperform in terms of meaning because good translation conveys the spirit of the words and not the letter. AI translations don’t know shit from Jack because they don’t know anything, nor do they understand the context in which the words stand. And if you are having issues with translating and you’re relying on AI to do so, then how the fuck would you even know it was working correctly?
Legitimately stupid.
But, sure, take out all the slave labor and environmentally devastating issues (a thing that only huge losers do because they are usually friendless assholes that think they’re as cool as Elon Musk and are unintentionally right), and you are left with a machine that is sometimes right but still cognitively damaging.
You just gotta do at least three hours per hour, and it’s easy!
I’m not a monkey!
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.
Fair. I do still think that everyone agrees with that because while these people don’t want anyone to touch any rights, they’ll ostensibly agree that “some people” shouldn’t have guns, whether that’s criminals or “criminals” or what have you.
So, in a way, I do think even 2A people agree, they just don’t think that it is either possible (“criminals will just ignore the law” like you can just find guns wherever) or that it’s the intention behind gun control (going after political dissidents).
My statement was more that the gun control that Democrats propose is basically nothing, and that it’s just a fucking wedge issue that also happens to consistently make gun manufacturers money. Are Dems supposed to lie and say letting teachers have guns solves gun violence in schools to appease these fuckers? Like, what the fuck are we talking about here?