[ShaveYourEyebrows] This place needs more AI hate : comics

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 54 points 3 months ago

The amount of times I've seen people arguing online (on more mainstream social media), and one comes in to prove their case by sharing a screenshot of the AI answers Google is putting at the top of their searches now. So fucking frustrating.

My experience seeing that happen: about 50% of the time the AI is supporting the person correctly. About 50% it's supporting the wrong person. And 100% of the time, I just wonder...how do you actually think sharing a screenshot of the AI is supporting your argument‽ Like, fine, I can get it if the AI answer is good enough for you in a casual conversation among friends, or to sate your own personal curiosity. But when you're in a heated debate online, it just makes you look like an idiot. Even when you're actually right.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

My dad and I both like linguistics a lot and will often go "hey where do you think [word] evolved from" and continue talking about it from there.

Sons and dads don't usually have actual conversations so this is like one of those rare times.

Anyway recently he said "let me teach you a trick" and asked AI over voice while smiling. Then he proceeded to have the conversation with the fucking AI.

We practically never talk anymore. Maybe it was intentional lmao.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 11 points 3 months ago

He genuinely thought he was impressing you and it's kinda tragic

[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Me every time! I said no to AI and I'm keeping it strong!

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 months ago

Same! I don't think the tech is useless, but most common uses are

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 months ago

The problem with this is actually not AI its the lack of respect on the human part.

If you don't want to have a conversation there are much friendlier ways to express this.

I am an introvert but have often employed the trick of asking about something you already know just to break the ice. (And stay within a comfortable topic)

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Transcription

A three-panel comic. On the left is a person with grey messy hair reading a book called "Book of Incomplete Information". On the right is a person with brown neat hair, looking at their phone.

In the first panel, there is the following dialogue:

Left: Hey do you know how to—

Right: Just ask ChatGPT

Second panel, Left stares angrily at Right, as Right scares back, wide-eyed with fear.

Third panel is a close-up on Right's face, as Left's fist punches them.

[–] SatyrSack@quokk.au 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I am about ninety percent certain the part of the speech bubble that is being overlapped reads "hide a body"

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 3 months ago

That makes a lot of sense! I noticed it was "[something] body", but had no idea what came before. Still, I thought just going with the em dash conveyed the same sentiment pretty well.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

OR Center the body

if they're trying to use CSS.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's a rather Vulgar Display of Power

[–] Sergio@piefed.social 9 points 3 months ago

for those that don't know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Display_of_Power

[–] cm0002@toast.ooo 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I think the hate needs to be properly directed towards the companies pushing it and not the tech itself. Because that's pretty much here to stay.

And it does have good utility, in tailored ways wielded by people who know what they're doing (e.g. you should be an experienced programmer already so you can catch when it's fucking up or just doing things on a weird way)

Companies that use it over creatives (e.g. using it for ads or animation for a commercial product) can also fuck off and die

[–] the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't agree with your stated premise that A.I. is here to stay. I've seen a lot of commenters use that sentence as if it were some kind of law of nature, with zero evidence to support it. It might be true, but it could also be false. No one knows the future, but what I do know is that the A.I. we have (LLM) is propped up by enormous amounts of speculative funding that hasn't come anywhere near being justified by commensurate profits. What about that business model says it will be around in the long term?

[–] cm0002@toast.ooo 2 points 3 months ago

You're still conflating the tech itself and business. The tech can exist without the business or without it being part of the core business model (Think, a smaller LLM to generate game dialogue (which imo (if done right) could be a very cool thing)) trained and shipped as part of a game

LLMs are here to stay, but when the bubble pops many MANY businesses will not survive as we all know. But every bubble has its survivors and those will be the ones that actually use it for proper use cases that can actually turn a profit or use it to support or enhance other features that are part of their product (and I'm sure a few giant ones will survive just because of their size, though they'll be damaged)

There are also plenty of good open source LLMs that don't depend on profits and business models, so that's another reason LLMs are here to stay

Though they will evolve im sure, new research and techniques will come and make them more useful

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 months ago

Some hate can be spared for ignorant assholes who push poor uses for the tech in the most dickhead way possible. The tech being "here to stay" does not mean the uses people think it has are. It will never be an authoritative source of info, nor can it be trusted to do most things people think it can. It can fill in for large scale data crunching that would not be possible otherwise, but it will always have significant uncertainty and lack of accountability that keep it from being an alternative to certain things.

[+] iloveDigit@piefed.social 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 3 months ago

Google has been useless for years, so when machine learning became more advanced I hoped they'd use it to better deliver results. Instead they insist on adding even worse shit into the pile with power eating blurbs I will never read.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

probably stabilization

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think my phone automatically turns off stabilization when you switch to 7K anyway

And the third party Open Camera app can't go past 4K on this phone, so I've been trying to figure out how exactly that functionality is blocked

[–] belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org 6 points 3 months ago

Ai sucks shit, stop using it

[–] msage@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Was there any love for AI anywhere around Lemmy?

Cause I feel it's all hate or at least mild disagreement in majority of cases.

[–] cm0002@toast.ooo 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

AI technology yea, lots of us find utility and value in AI itself. It's a decent tool, it's not an end all be all like the AI tech bros scream about.

AI companies fuck no, fuck them especially fuck OpenAI

[–] msage@programming.dev 7 points 3 months ago

Maybe perhaps better to specify GenAI.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think that given that the whole point of the fediverse is human-centric, the default position has to be 'fuck the shitty mimicks of humanity'

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Nah the haters, right or wrong, just kept yelling at anyone that didn't, Lemmy had and has plenty of AI users and skews techy. Now the haters are at the "patting themselves on the back for the right think" stage after they've bullied their opponents into silence.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not a hater per se, but I see it degrade the quality of some of my cohort and it makes me sad to watch

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago

I'm more a "this trash is going to destroy social trust, destroy the environment and crash the economy" type hater myself but I prefer to keep the vitriol directed at the tech oligarchs with the foresight of a sponge rather than individual Lemmy users, which is just pretty gross behavior and shockingly common behavior imo.

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Obviously not all users, but it seems the dbzer0 instance is pretty genAI-positive, or at least parts of it are, moreso than I've seen just about anywhere else on Lemmy anyway

[–] huquad@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Gave him the ole gum gum pistol

[+] twinnie@feddit.uk -20 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Frankly I find the AI hate kind of tiresome itself. ChatGPT is just another source of information, it can be right and wrong, as can a webpage a books or a person. Nowadays all the people who think they’re smart just tell you to Google an answer yourself; in the early 00s people were the same about finding answers on the internet. If you had the answer to a question and told people you’d read it on the internet they’d smirk at you and tell you to read a book (which could also be wrong).

[–] BremboTheFourth@piefed.ca 36 points 3 months ago

Ah yes all sources of information are equal, that's why the bullshit I spew drunk in the bar at 3AM is just as valid as any well-supported, verifiable claim

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

Personally I find the fact that people trust unreliable software to be annoying and a huge societal problem.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 27 points 3 months ago

another source of information

The only one that didn't have conscious thought put into the answer. One that can't be updated/revised/held to account for being wrong. At the same time many expect it to be more right because it's a computer and they are supposed to be infallible.

[–] germanatlas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

GPT (or any other LLM) is not a source, it’s a relay that ambiguates its original sources and thus washes away any sort of credibility.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This exactly. If it just said "Here's sources with info about that, and a summary of what they say" that's helpful. The whole presenting the info as authoritative is the crux of the problem. People are too stupid to *not" trust it.

[–] germanatlas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 months ago

Even those summaries with sources are to be used with caution, I’ve had plenty of search summaries where AI just omitted a 'not' or other vital parts of the original answer (tbf that’s also the case for man-made summaries, just look at the amount of accidental misinformation on Wikipedia caused by inattentive reading of original sources)

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 3 months ago

As other people have stated, it will fundamentally never be a "source of information." Trust can be built in sources and their information can be verified, but since LLMs guess answers based on what it thinks sounds right, you'll still need independent information to even know if it's right. This makes it completely redundant. It doesn't matter how powerful it becomes; it will never do things it is not invented to do.

The real tragedy is that machine learning is a powerful technology, but people don't know its limits and misuse the tech as a result.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago

I find AI hate tiresome, but relying on an AI to be an authoritative source is exactly why so many people are hating it. Please stop.

[–] belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org 4 points 3 months ago

Why would you want something answering you that is not deterministic? How is that useful for information gathering? If it spouts lies a decent amount of time: that's completely useless information.

Comics