This is the technology worth trillions of dollars huh
✅ Colorado
✅ Connedicut
✅ Delaware
❌ District of Columbia (on a technicality)
✅ Florida
But not
❌ I'aho
❌ Iniana
❌ Marylan
❌ Nevaa
❌ North Akota
❌ Rhoe Islan
❌ South Akota
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
853 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
75232 readers
1970 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Gosh tier comment.
You just described most of my post history.
Everyone knows it's properly spelled "I, the ho" not Idaho. That’s why it didn’t make the list.
They took money away from cancer research programs to fund this.
After we pump another hundred trillion dollars and half the electricity generated globally into AI you're going to feel pretty foolish for this comment.
Just a couple billion more parameters, bro, I swear, it will replace all the workers
- CEOs
load more comments
(3 replies)
I don't think this gets nearly enough visibility: https://www.academ-ai.info/
Papers in peer-reviewed journals with (extremely strong) evidence of AI shenanigans.
Thanks for sharing! I clicked on it with cynicism around how easily we could detect AI usage with confidence vs. risking making false allegations, but every single example on their homepage is super clear and I have no doubts - I'm impressed! (and disappointed)
Yup. I had exactly the same trepidation, and then it was all like “As an AI model, I don’t have access to the data you requested, however here are some examples of…”
I have more contempt for the peer reviewers who let those slide into major journals, than for the authors. It’s like the Brown M&M test; if you didn’t spot that blatant howler then no fucking way did you properly check the rest of the paper before waving it through. The biggest scandal in all this isn’t that it happened, it’s that the journals involved seem to be almost never retracting them upon being reported.
Well, for anyone who knows a bit about how LLMs work, it’s pretty obvious why LLMs struggle with identifying the letters in the words
load more comments
(13 replies)
This is the perfect time for LLM-based AI. We are already dealing with a significant population that accepts provable lies as facts, doesn't believe in science. and has no concept of what hypocrisy means. The gross factual errors and invented facts of current AI couldn't possibly fit in better.
Lol @ these fucking losers who think AI is the current answer to any problems
AI will most likely create new problems in the future as it eats up electricity like a world eater, so I fear that soon these non-humans will only turn on electricity for normal people for a few hours a day instead of the whole day to save energy for the AI.
I'm not sure about this of course, but it's quite possible.
Third time's the charm! They have to keep the grift going after Blockchain and NFT failed with the general public.
@arararagi@ani.social Don't forget Metaverse, they took a fuckin bath on that.
Funny thing is, the metaverse as their pictured it failed, but vrchat itself had it's biggest spike this year.
As long as there's something to sell for untalented morons to feel intelligent & talented; they'll take the bait.
Connedicut.
I wondered if this has been fixed. Not only has it not, the AI has added Nebraska.
load more comments
(6 replies)
"This is the technology worth trillions of dollars"
You can make anything fly high in the sky with enough helium, just not for long.
(Welcome to the present day Tech Stock Market)
load more comments
(1 replies)
GitLab Enterprise somewhat recently added support for Amazon Q (based on claude) through an interface they call “GitLab Duo”. I needed to look up something in the GitLab docs, but thought I’d ask Duo/Q instead (the UI has this big button in the top left of every screen to bring up Duo to chat with Q):
(Paraphrasing…)
ME: How do I do X with Amazon Q in GitLab? Q: Open the Amazon Q menu in the GitLab UI and select the appropriate option.
ME: [:looks for the non-existant menu:] ME: Where in the UI do I find this menu?
Q: My last response was incorrect. There is no Amazon Q button in GitLab. In fact, there is no integration between GitLab and Amazon Q at all.
ME: [:facepalm:]
We're turfing out students by the tens on academic misconduct. They are handing in papers with references that clearly state "generated by Chat GPT". Lazy idiots.
This is why invisible watermarking of AI-generated content is likely to be so effective. Even primitive watermarks like file metadata. It's not hard for anyone with technical knowledge to remove, but the thing with AI-generated content is that anyone who dishonestly uses it when they are not supposed to is probably also too lazy to go through the motions of removing the watermarking.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Listen, we just have to boil the ocean five more times.
Then it will hallucinate slightly less.
Or more. There’s no way to be sure since it’s probabilistic.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Blows my mind people pay money for wrong answers.
Nothing will stop them, they are so crazy that they can turn nonsense into reality, believe me.
Or to put it more simply -- They need power for the sake of power itself, there is nothing higher.
With enough duct tape and chewed up bubble gum, surely this will lead to artificial general intelligence and the singularity! Any day now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Connecdicud.
I would estimate that Google's AI is helpful and correct about 7% of the time, for actual questions I'd like the answer to.
view more: next ›