[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

i retain a pretty dismal view of AI for just about any use case, but had some distant friends / people i follow on social media say they used it as a rubber duck for troubleshooting a problem they had, or a place to just dump emotions into. i figured this, at the very minimum, could and should be harmless. i guess i wasn't cynical enough

[-] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

claiming to have customers you don't actually have so vocally that they have to sue you to get their names out of your mouth should be a death knell on its own, but the whole "pretending their already-expired three-month trial contract is still in effect for the full year" is a great way to find yourself pulling a Sam Bankman-Fried, except that you don't have a side company to pull $$$ from to cover your tracks

[-] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

i wonder which endocrine systems are disrupted by not having your head sufficiently stuffed into a toilet before being old enough to type words into nazitter dot com

[-] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

i used (and use, until the shutdown) cohost as my primary social media site. i'm not surprised, but i can't say it hasn't been disappointing. for all the issues it has (and it did have a lot) it was pretty much the only site that felt somewhat cozy to use for me. stings quite a bit

[-] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

An opinion is still an opinion no matter how widely held it is.

why did you even bring up your one artist friend's opinion if you're just gonna be like "well actually that's just YOUR opinion" when i disagree

yet I still refuse to call it art.

Duchamp wants a word

And then we have people who are attacking any use of ai images that are willing to call it "AI Art"...

good thing i, me, the person you're responding to, isn't those people. makes me wonder why you even brought it up in the first place

I believe that you believe that.

i also believe you're deliberately trying to be as insufferable as possible, so be sure to add that to the bizarre collection of things you think i believe while you're at it. or better yet: don't

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

...gods i miss n-gate

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

putting my 2¢ forward: this is a forum for making fun of overconfident techbros. i work in tech, and it is maddening to watch a massively overvalued industry buy into yet another hype bubble, kept inflated by seemingly endless amounts of money from investors and VCs. and as a result it's rather cathartic to watch (and sneer at) said industry's golden goose shit itself to death over and over again due to entirely foreseeable consequences of the technology they're blindly putting billions of dollars into. this isn't r/programming, this is Mystery Science Theater 3000.

i do not care if someone does or does not understand the nuances of database administration, schema design, indexing and performance, and different candidates for the types of primary keys. hell, i barely know just enough SQL to shoot myself in the foot, which is why i don't try to write my own databases, in the hypothetical situation where i try to engineer a startup that "extracts web data at scale with multimodal codegen", whatever that means.

if someone doesn't understand, and they come in expressing confusion or asking for clarification? that's perfectly fine -- hell, if anything, i'd welcome bringing people up to speed so they can join in the laughter.

but do not come in here clueless and confidently (in)correct the people doing the sneering and expect to walk away without a couple rotten tomatoes chucked at you. if you want to do that, reddit and hacker news are thataway.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

I'm just talking about stuff more like Discord or Steam that are huge distributed systems that don't use databases.

huh???

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

NullBulge

oh you know it was some furries

edit: their website (now down, but up on the wayback machine) uses ai-generated furry art, which few self-respecting furries (much less hacktivist ones) would touch with a ten-foot pole. or at least, the ones in the furry circles i keep. so it could very well just be opportunists

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago
[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

but then who will we have to laugh at? you're depriving helpless children of an endless supply of twats to sneer -- think of the kids!!

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Ultimately, LLMs don’t use words,

LLM responses are basically paths through the token space, they may or may not overuse certain words, but they’ll have a bias towards using certain words together

so they use words but they don't. okay

this is about as convincing a point as "humans don't use words, they use letters!" it's not saying anything, just adding noise

So I don’t think this is impossible… Humans struggle to grasp these kinds of hidden relationships (consciously at least), but neural networks are good at that kind of thing

i can't tell what the "this" is that you think is possible

part of the problem is that a lot of those "hidden relationships" are also noise. knowing that "running" is typically an activity involving your legs doesn't help one parse the sentence "he's running his mouth", and part of participating in communication is being able to throw out these spurious and useless connections when reading and writing, something the machine consistently fails to do.

It’s incredibly useful to generate all sorts of content when paired with a skilled human

so is a rock

It can handle the tedious details while a skilled human drives it and validates the output

validation is the hard step, actually. writing articles is actually really easy if you don't care about the legibility, truthiness, or quality of the output. i've tried to "co-write" short-format fiction with large language models for fun and it always devolved into me deleting large chunks -- or even the whole -- output of the machine and rewriting it by hand. i was more "productive" with a blank notepad.exe. i've not tried it for documentation or persuasive writing but i'm pretty sure it would be a similar situation there, if not even more so, because in nonfiction writing i actually have to conform to reality.

this argument always baffles me whenever it comes up. as if writing is 5% coming up with ideas and then the other 95% is boring, tedium, pen-in-hand (or fingers-on-keyboard) execution. i've yet to meet a writer who believes this -- all the writing i've ever done required more-or-less constant editorial decisions from the macro scale of format and structure down to individual choices. have i sufficiently introduced this concept? do i like the way this sentence flows, or does it need to go earlier in the paragraph? how does this tie with the feeling i'm trying to convey or the argument i'm trying to put forward?

writing is, as a skill, that editorial process (at least to one degree or another). sure, i can defer all the choice to the machine and get the statistically-most-expected, confusing, factually dubious, aimless, unchallenging, and uncompelling text out of it. but if i want anything more than that (and i suspect most writers do), then i am doing 100% of that work myself.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

ebu

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 1 year ago