this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
1554 points (97.8% liked)

memes

10637 readers
2735 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I understand their limitations, but you're overselling the negative. They're fucking awesome for what they can do, but they have drawbacks that you must be aware of. Just as it's lame to be an AI fanboi, it's equally lame to be an AI luddite.

[–] Prunebutt 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's funny tou bring up luddites, since they actually had the right idea about technology like LLMs. They were highly skilled textile workers who opposed the introducyion of dangerous medhanical looms that produced low quality goos, but were so easy to use so that a child could work them (because they wanted to employ children). They only got their bad name of backward anti-technology lunatics afterwards. But they were actually concerned for low quality technology being deployed to weaken worker's rights, cheapen products and make bosses even richer. That's actually the main issue I have with what's happening with AI.

There's a book by Brian Merchant called "Blood in the machine" on the topic, if you're interested. He's also on a bunch of podcasts, if you're not the big reader.

I'm referring to "bullshit" in the way argued in this paper:

Applications of these systems have been plagued by persistent inaccuracies in their output; these are often called “AI hallucinations”. We argue that these falsehoods, and the overall activity of large language models, is better understood as bullshit in the sense explored by Frankfurt (On Bullshit, Princeton, 2005): the models are in an important way indifferent to the truth of their outputs.

The technology is neat. I'll give you that. But it's incredibly overhyped.