kadu

I recall reading a news article about AI damaging people’s ability to comprehend a simple conversation… I didn’t think it was true, but I can see now that yes, you people do exist out there huh.

You don’t know me

Good thing I’m reflecting on your comments about AI, not your favorite ice cream flavor.

Again, you’ve generot a weirdly black and white view about a movie that was written to have a complex moral landscape and ambiguous characters. I think you missed out on a great deal of the movie’s meaning and intent.

Good thing I’m not talking about the morality around the movie, just one specific character and their views on the merits of artificially generated experiences.

Ah, irony.

Maybe copy and paste the thread on the AI you love so much and it could explain the concept to you.

Who’s “you people”?

You.

Also, did you watch the Matrix? The villains were not clear cut. There were machines who were sympathetic to humanity and humans who were traitors

I was specifically making allusion to Cypher’s steak scene, but I should’ve suspected you wouldn’t understand how that was meant to be interpreted given you agree with the villain. Sorry for not being clear enough.

In which case I guess I see why you’d think my criterion of “is the writing good?” Is irrelevant.

Says the guy who just commented how you just consume the content and never makes a hint of effort to understand the purpose behind the writing, whilst defending AI scripts.

Is it good?

That’s really all I care about at the end of the day. When I watch a TV show I’ve never really cared who the scriptwriter was or what their personal history or intent behind the story whatever. I just watch the show, and if it’s a good story I enjoy it.

You people would watch The Matrix and side with the villains, that’s bizarre. I have a toy soldier with more soul than what you just displayed.

If that is indeed the case then there’s no risk of writers losing jobs to it.

In what fairy tale universe do you live where bad things aren’t forced upon people via market pressures?

But what if it turns out that things other than humans can make those things?

They can (copying massive amounts of actually human made content, of course) but that’s completely irrelevant to the point. I don’t care if they can do it or not, I’m not their creator.

It used to be a commonly-repeated argument that no computer would ever best a human grandmaster at chess.

And guess what, I watch people compete when playing chess, even if they are not as good as the chess engines. People watch people playing chess, not two smartphones side by side on a table with StockFish running.

I wouldn’t be so confident that AI can’t tell good stories at some point soon.

They can write a 10 hour movie and I still wouldn’t give a shit about what an AI is got to say.

To me it’s not even about jobs. It’s about the interest in the art… why the fuck would I care about a script written by AI and acted by AI? What’s even the point?

If everything is artificially generated to be mildly pleasing, just fucking electrically stimulate my dopamine receptors directly, what’s even the goal here? See a few pixels move on my screen?

The whole humanity thing was work to survive so we can make the things only humans can make: wonders, art, tell stories, play sports… why would I give a shit about a computer’s interpretation of that?

No AI star got any “agency interest” these headlines are purposelly crafted to create the impression that there was interest. This is free publicity for an AI avatar nobody gives a shit about.

Yes, but the colour of your clothing will be pre-selected for you in a very opinionated matter.

Zuck will do the same thing he’s been doing on Facebook and Threads: fill the entire site with bots and count those as real accounts when talking to investors. Will artificially inflate the numbers.

You went out of your way to tell someone that if they find llms used full it means they are stupid

Yes.

and not as good as you

That I did not say nor agree with.

But now that your argument doesn’t hold any water

Nothing you said disproved anything about “my argument” but sure.

Cool, go use LLMs. Not sure why you’re expecting validation from me, I’ll never be impressed by your inability to handle basic tasks and attempt at delegating them to a predictive text generator. I can’t do anything about your choices, nor do I care about your lack of skill.

Ah fuck, I’ve read your comment so now the Nintendo lawyers are knocking on my door

It just means you suck at prompting, which is basically just talking and explaining what you need

I suck at prompting? I didn’t write the dozens of papers showing the limitations of LLMs, my guy.

Yep, sugarcane polymers are amazing. They can be made to dissolve quickly or last a little longer, depending on your needs. Technically they could be used as full packaging for chips and bread and similar foods.

openWRT is fantastic and does indeed give you full control over your router… but not your modem. Modems are a complete mess of patents and proprietary software that nobody can control but a select number of companies.

Your joke would work better against the guy boasting about using LLMs, not the one actively avoiding them. Maybe ask a LLM for an explanation as to why.

Congrats…?

Again, not what I said.

But given how difficult interpreting this simple comment has been for you, and your extremely weird reply (toxic gamer? what?) I think you’re better off using the LLM to interpret and write for you after all. Good day though!

That’s not what I said.

LLMs are demonstrably bad at what they do, and what they do is just very basic writing, research and math.

It’s not about things I know or don’t know. If you’re finding LLMs useful, you’re lacking in some foundational skills that everybody should practice and be capable of doing.

Not to be a dick, but this reveals more about your own limitations than it does about the power of LLMs…

I think they worked out that men on average think about sex about 8 times as much

I’ll assume you’re misremembering the study or reading an article about the study not the paper itself, because otherwise, I’d be terrified at the really bad attempt at doing science if any peer reviewed study published these words.