Can someone more technical than me correct me if I’m wrong here, but … isn’t scheduling alerts for things something that has been in PRE-FUCKING IPHONE ERA DUMB PHONES EVEN!?
Like … am I taking crazy pills or something? Computers (and later phones) have had schedulers and reminder apps since before I was born (1966) right?
A very unfortunate suicide that involves a guillotine and—he’d appreciate this—a vote on Xhitter whether the lever should be pulled or not. After 500,000 online votes, the computer either activates the release to let him carry on, or it drops the blade.
If the former is selected, then he has an unfortunate accident with a runaway Cybertruck.
Nobody says it has to be done legally.
I’m gonna have to escalate that to “execute”.
That’s what it says, yes, and that’s genuinely laudable (especially if the control defaults to “block”).
But what companies say now and what companies say in the future are different things, no? I mean I could be trite and point to Google’s “don’t be evil” … so I will.
I use Zen. (For features that are harder to use in other spins.) I’ve had generally good experience.
But are these current and future degenerative AI features going to be opt-in or opt-out? 'Cause if the latter, they’ll still be sticking AI into random things and hoping we don’t notice.
I think that’s just what he does while playing golf.
So … sometimes … slop is used for good?
Speaking about AI, Stallman warned that “nowadays, people often use the term artificial intelligence for things that aren’t intelligent at all…”
Ah… Something just dawned on me.
Didn’t he … I think I’ll just quote Wackypedia for this:
In 1971, near the end of his first year at Harvard, he became a programmer at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory …
In 1971 there was nothing that was intelligent at all in the world of computing. (And, as is normal, in 99.44% of humanity. This is a constant. 😉) It’s almost as if the term “Artificial Intelligence” has never meant, you know, actual intelligence. And it goes on:
He pursued a doctorate in physics for one year, but left the program to focus on his programming at the MIT AI Laboratory.
[…] in September 1983. Since then, he had remained affiliated with MIT as an unpaid “visiting scientist” in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Until “around 1998”, he maintained an office at the Institute that doubled as his legal residence.
That’s an awful lot of “not intelligent at all” places he’s worked for or been affiliated with that use the term artificial intelligence…
Dr. Collier is one of my favourite Youtube personalities. Because she has one. A personality I mean. She’s not a professional presenter with polished style and carefully-selected words. She’s raw, unfiltered, and low-key hilarious when she gets going on a rant. Or on a sidetrack.
It really should, however, if you’re making software for people to use, point out the consequences, especially if the consequences aren’t immediately obvious to the requested action. There’s a sizable divide between “don’t share my data” and “OK, we’ll delete everything”.
Don’t get me wrong. ChatGPT is a festering pile of shit even without this. This “professor” should be stripped of his teaching credentials and be thrown into an LLMbecile detox centre, only allowed to exit when he learns to think for himself. These are both true.
But it is also true that if there are drastic implications to an action that isn’t an obvious outcome from the requested function it should warn you.
To be fair to the clankfucker, even Windows, one of the worst piles of dog fæces to have ever been foisted on the public for money, knows enough to ask “are you sure?” on mass deletions, etc.
Doesn’t stop him from being a moron for not backing up, but there you go.
I like LLMbeciles myself.
Oh, it’s always fun to find an elitist.
Please, oh great Swami. Tell us what is “good”.
Then I’ll kick your ass with things that are “better”.
Because in the end it is the listener, not the performer, who decides what’s good or not.
This is not a provoking thought. This is tediously well-worn ground that was tossed out on its ass as facetious in the early days of AI slop intruding into things.
The difference is one of intentionality. The human work has intent. It may badly reflect that intent because of lack of physical skills or compositional incompetence or such, but in the end, even in the bad art, there was intent.
LLMbeciles and other degenerative AI forms have no ability to formulate intent. They’re not putting in “drum parts like Freddie Gruber” because his distinctive swing adds an undefinable swagger to the guitar riffs. They’re mechanically imitating kinda/sorta a Freddie Gruber line because the key words “Freddie Gruber” were tied to a pattern in their maths and they slavishly pulled it out.
As for the “artist” using the LLMbecile or other degenerative AI, they aren’t artists either. They’ve created nothing. At best they’re an art director and a pretty shit one at that.
Carefully structured academic work?
AI slop has been given a facelift!
Let’s start with the nicknames for the kinds of losers who’d use these so we can have them at the ready. Think “glasshole” (the one that stuck to Google’s surveillance product) but for this instead. I propose we use something like “pinhead”, only one that doesn’t suck like that, to just pre-emptively label its users before it even gets to market.
Isn’t Palantir Thiel’s baby?
It’s amazing how there’s so many angles from which to attack LLMbeciles—technological, social, moral, and fiscal—and yet the clank fuckers out there remain convinced they’re at the cusp of “Real” AI.