Investors like this approach because it sells so well even if nothing much is behind it. The logic: don't pay attention to the business model, don't emphasize this, but put everything on companies that appear promising with their product some time far in the future - throw money at it until it is hyped - then sell before reality kicks in.

This is not to say that there are no use cases for LLMs—there certainly are, and in very different contexts. I am simply pointing out that the market value of the companies involved is hopelessly overvalued—far removed from reality.

The only thing that makes this completely reckless approach absolutely foolproof for large investors is the fact that all large investors are involved. This ensures that the share prices will rise until the large investors agree to sell, at which point it won't be long before everything collapses—whether it's a useful technology or a viable product doesn't really matter at this point.

This is how today's stock market works due to the massive centralization of capital: All you need to know is which stocks major investors and politicians, who are paid to pass the relevant legislation, are investing in.

You can make it all seem much more complicated than it really is, but that's the bottom line.

Somebody I'm sure has already said this, but the Turing test assumed AIs would need to prove their intelligence by appearing human in their speech, but now the problem is the opposite, that humans will have to somehow prove that they are not LLMs when they type anything on the internet.

What about being around 10000 bananas for 8 hours? Are people on banana plantations at significantly higher risk of cancer?

Come mista tally man
Tally me tumours
Daylight come and me need to go hospital 😔

inspiration: Chyrosran22's rant (YouTube Link) on the fact that the term "mechanical keyboard" does not has a widely accepted definition.

Not really a shower thought, but a "spraying my hair with dry shampoo before a Teams meeting" thought.

We all migrate to smaller websites try not to post outside drawing attention just to hide from the "Ai" crawlers. The internet seems dead except for the few pockets we each know existed away from the clankers

Imagine water that flowed into drain hole being pumped back into the showerhead.

However, this is the operational principle of dishwashers.

E: I was hit by this thought after watching Alec's* ramble on dishwasher detergents.

*E2: Alex -> Alec

I always have been nervous going into the bank to get my own money. Its funny to me we have a trillionaire that probably has never once had this feeling.

Besides obvious traps in differing levels of quality of LLM's and resources, being availiable to commoners for cheap or free and paid for corporate rich clients, there's still an undiscovered question about how these different AIs are biased.

After reading a lenghty thread where I've seen many takes about if LLM could've pushed a teen into commiting suicide, I thought to myself: if there are obviously different models availiable, may they be taught differently for each userbase?

May, for example, some genAI for rich and poor differ, helping first ones to procreate and others to die off?

What if some data engineers trained a popular model to represent one specific agenda, to serve their favorite bosses and institutions?

What if, for the argument's sake, their GenAIs serve this role as an enabler of suicide, as it was intentionally programmed for?

We are all animals living in an alien zoo, where they run social experiments for fun. Like installing the biggest idiot as the leader of the most powerful country in the world. And then they watch us like some reality TV show. It's really surreal what is happening in the world that it must be true.

Assuming Salvator, Celebrator, and the like are masculine beers, I would imagine Salvatrix and Celebratrix are their feminine counterparts.

It has a long story and a lot of better explanations, but in short

1. Some character has a problem;
2. They find a short-term solution;
3. It later becames unsufficient, and then a problem for them and others.

All my Youtube feeds are filling up with AI videos made within the past month or two. It's just an endless stream of newly created content made by people who are just chasing after just a little bit of attention. It's all just rehashed crap, remade videos scraped from previous videos, remixed and remade again and again.

It wasn't so noticeable a year ago but now it's getting worse. It's just an endless stream of new AI videos and there is more and more every day.

A year ago, it was decently made AI video with a bit of realistic content ... now it's just all made up crap of all sorts filled with all kinds of made up information to sound as authentic as possible. It's so easy to just scrape together a bunch of content, send it all through an AI and make it sound like some sort of authentic documentary that would fool the least attentive viewer.

• Proponents will argue it's about fairness and deterrence
• Lack of judicial discretion and a shift to prosecutorial power will end up with disproportionate punishments, while still allowing for discrimination

Both concepts specifically appeal to those who are unable to achieve anything on their own—they serve to recruit these people against their own interests and therefore have parallels with and often the same effect as religion.

....when you think about it.

It's kind of like that when you don't think about it too.

But especially when you do.