• @TootSweet
    link
    English
    469 hours ago

    LLMs should die in a fire.

    • FaceDeer
      link
      fedilink
      178 hours ago

      From the project page:

      The purpose of this project is not to restrict or ban the use of AI in articles, but to verify that its output is acceptable and constructive, and to fix or remove it otherwise.

      There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with LLMs. Users just need to know their capabilities and limitations and use them correctly. Just like any other tool.

      • @TootSweet
        link
        English
        77 hours ago

        There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with LLMs.

        Disagree.

        • @essteeyou
          link
          English
          146 hours ago

          Compelling argument.

    • @TommySoda
      link
      English
      249 hours ago

      I’d be on board if it was actually useful and accurate. But it has proven time and time again to be hot garbage 99% of the time as they shove it down everyone’s throat. They keep talking about it being a new age of AI and how it’s going to change the world but it’s only made the internet a worse place and changed nothing or made things worse.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        98 hours ago

        They keep talking about it being a new age of AI and how it’s going to change the world but it’s only made the internet a worse place and changed nothing or made things worse.

        Just like with crypto and NFTs.

      • @Xeroxchasechase
        link
        English
        58 hours ago

        For me it’s useful, the 99% garbage is hype and misuse. I’d like the exploitative nature of llms to die, rther than the technology itself

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          8
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Most people have no issue with what we were calling AI before the LLM fad hellscape we’re currently in.

          No one sane is going to object to using machine learning to optimize the performance of an antenna, or crash safety of a car frame. People aren’t against the existence of AI opponents in video games. No one was ranting about fuzzy search algorithms, or neural nets on their own. Beyond that, data science has been a thing for ages with no contreversy.

          The issue is generative AI and how it is being used. The best case use scenarios are just supplanting tech that already exists at higher cost and delivering worse results. The worst case use scenarios are attempting to cannibalize multiple creative pursuits to remove the need for humans and maximize profits.

          • @Xeroxchasechase
            link
            English
            12 hours ago

            Yeah, that’s what I’ve meant: the issue with generative ai is how it is being used, another issue is the lack of compensation to stolen training data. But these are human / capitalist set of incentives problems.

            As a developer it helpd me countless of times, by helping me understand legacy code, or new concepts, in a chatty way, by helping me write corporate friendly formal emails. I use it to recommend and discover music or just mindlessly chatting with it about nothing. The technology is genuinely useful. (I do click stack overflow and other sites links when it provides, and turned off my ad blocker for some sites)

  • The Hobbyist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    57 hours ago

    Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic and co should help fight this fight, their tools are the problem here.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34 hours ago

      No thank you. I would prefer if they had as little influence over anything in the world as possible.