▲ 275 ▼ Microsoft executive vice president bemoans employees sending him "AI slop," saying "This is a doom loop." (www.windowscentral.com) submitted 11 hours ago by sundray@lemmus.org to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world 35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works -4 points 9 hours ago (2 children) Do you aim for excellence in your first drafts? You may want to consider better effort allocation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 hours ago (1 child) As my violin teacher used to say, “practice doesn’t make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect.” If you’re not aiming for excellence every time you do something you’re practicing imperfection. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works -2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Sure man, but the vast majority of us do not work in the making beautiful sounds with violing business. If some middle manager boss says to some minion to make a quick draft of a keynote of some random info that tangentially may make sense in one of his meetings, and the minion then goes on working on it on full attention for a day to make the beautifullest keynote of the word he did not do a draft and the boss is pissed because other shit did not get done. Having an llm quarter ass a keynote based on a prompt and two refinements is precisely the effort required for that job, any more than that is wasting time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child) If the quick draft doesn't justify the time and energy, the keynote certainly doesn't. If the keynote is a waste of time, then the meeting is pointless. The best place for the LLM is to replace the jackass who called the pointless meeting in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works 1 point 42 minutes ago I agree with you. Yet those jackasses will not be replaced any faster by us agreeing here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 8 points 9 hours ago (1 child) If you are using a generator that combines everything (both bad and good) on the net, you will end right on the middle. If everyone that's lazy uses the same method, your work becomes the definition of mediocre. Nothing wrong with mediocre, I mean the corporate world is full of mediocrity and that's what is expected in assignments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 7 hours ago (1 child) That assumes that there is no effective way to filter good from bad. But there is - both automated heuristics and manual training does this. LLMs absolutely produce mediocre output in some ways, but it's not an inherent limitation caused by them "averaging" the internet. If that were the case there'd be a lot more typos, emojis and internet lingo by default. The fact that LLMs have these instantly recognisable stock ways of writing and stock phrases is a simple way of seeing that they don't simply produce "average" output in that very naive sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Do you even know what the word heuristic means? A heuristic is something that is just good enough. Not great, not perfect, just good enough to get the job done. Heuristic algorithms were always going to result in LLMs that were only just good enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Heuristics are by definition imperfect, but they are not, generally, "just good enough". In fact, heuristics may not be good enough for a given purpose. Am I right that you're not actually disagreeing with my comment? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago Heuristics that aren’t good enough aren’t used for that purpose... what kind of rebuttal is this even? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 hours ago (1 child) As my violin teacher used to say, “practice doesn’t make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect.” If you’re not aiming for excellence every time you do something you’re practicing imperfection. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works -2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Sure man, but the vast majority of us do not work in the making beautiful sounds with violing business. If some middle manager boss says to some minion to make a quick draft of a keynote of some random info that tangentially may make sense in one of his meetings, and the minion then goes on working on it on full attention for a day to make the beautifullest keynote of the word he did not do a draft and the boss is pissed because other shit did not get done. Having an llm quarter ass a keynote based on a prompt and two refinements is precisely the effort required for that job, any more than that is wasting time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child) If the quick draft doesn't justify the time and energy, the keynote certainly doesn't. If the keynote is a waste of time, then the meeting is pointless. The best place for the LLM is to replace the jackass who called the pointless meeting in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works 1 point 42 minutes ago I agree with you. Yet those jackasses will not be replaced any faster by us agreeing here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works -2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Sure man, but the vast majority of us do not work in the making beautiful sounds with violing business. If some middle manager boss says to some minion to make a quick draft of a keynote of some random info that tangentially may make sense in one of his meetings, and the minion then goes on working on it on full attention for a day to make the beautifullest keynote of the word he did not do a draft and the boss is pissed because other shit did not get done. Having an llm quarter ass a keynote based on a prompt and two refinements is precisely the effort required for that job, any more than that is wasting time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child) If the quick draft doesn't justify the time and energy, the keynote certainly doesn't. If the keynote is a waste of time, then the meeting is pointless. The best place for the LLM is to replace the jackass who called the pointless meeting in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works 1 point 42 minutes ago I agree with you. Yet those jackasses will not be replaced any faster by us agreeing here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child) If the quick draft doesn't justify the time and energy, the keynote certainly doesn't. If the keynote is a waste of time, then the meeting is pointless. The best place for the LLM is to replace the jackass who called the pointless meeting in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works 1 point 42 minutes ago I agree with you. Yet those jackasses will not be replaced any faster by us agreeing here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works 1 point 42 minutes ago I agree with you. Yet those jackasses will not be replaced any faster by us agreeing here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 8 points 9 hours ago (1 child) If you are using a generator that combines everything (both bad and good) on the net, you will end right on the middle. If everyone that's lazy uses the same method, your work becomes the definition of mediocre. Nothing wrong with mediocre, I mean the corporate world is full of mediocrity and that's what is expected in assignments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 7 hours ago (1 child) That assumes that there is no effective way to filter good from bad. But there is - both automated heuristics and manual training does this. LLMs absolutely produce mediocre output in some ways, but it's not an inherent limitation caused by them "averaging" the internet. If that were the case there'd be a lot more typos, emojis and internet lingo by default. The fact that LLMs have these instantly recognisable stock ways of writing and stock phrases is a simple way of seeing that they don't simply produce "average" output in that very naive sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Do you even know what the word heuristic means? A heuristic is something that is just good enough. Not great, not perfect, just good enough to get the job done. Heuristic algorithms were always going to result in LLMs that were only just good enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Heuristics are by definition imperfect, but they are not, generally, "just good enough". In fact, heuristics may not be good enough for a given purpose. Am I right that you're not actually disagreeing with my comment? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago Heuristics that aren’t good enough aren’t used for that purpose... what kind of rebuttal is this even? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 7 hours ago (1 child) That assumes that there is no effective way to filter good from bad. But there is - both automated heuristics and manual training does this. LLMs absolutely produce mediocre output in some ways, but it's not an inherent limitation caused by them "averaging" the internet. If that were the case there'd be a lot more typos, emojis and internet lingo by default. The fact that LLMs have these instantly recognisable stock ways of writing and stock phrases is a simple way of seeing that they don't simply produce "average" output in that very naive sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Do you even know what the word heuristic means? A heuristic is something that is just good enough. Not great, not perfect, just good enough to get the job done. Heuristic algorithms were always going to result in LLMs that were only just good enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Heuristics are by definition imperfect, but they are not, generally, "just good enough". In fact, heuristics may not be good enough for a given purpose. Am I right that you're not actually disagreeing with my comment? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago Heuristics that aren’t good enough aren’t used for that purpose... what kind of rebuttal is this even? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Do you even know what the word heuristic means? A heuristic is something that is just good enough. Not great, not perfect, just good enough to get the job done. Heuristic algorithms were always going to result in LLMs that were only just good enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Heuristics are by definition imperfect, but they are not, generally, "just good enough". In fact, heuristics may not be good enough for a given purpose. Am I right that you're not actually disagreeing with my comment? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago Heuristics that aren’t good enough aren’t used for that purpose... what kind of rebuttal is this even? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Heuristics are by definition imperfect, but they are not, generally, "just good enough". In fact, heuristics may not be good enough for a given purpose. Am I right that you're not actually disagreeing with my comment? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago Heuristics that aren’t good enough aren’t used for that purpose... what kind of rebuttal is this even? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago Heuristics that aren’t good enough aren’t used for that purpose... what kind of rebuttal is this even? permalink fedilink source parent