Nobody who uses AI treats it like a tool, they treat it like an employee they can claim credit for. And most tools aren’t actively detrimental to the user to the point of proven intelligence drops, lawsuits and environmental destruction. Also, the enemy charges you money to use it.
The only person who benefits from AI is the person selling it. So why are you trying to defend it?
I would rather wear a gimp mask. Less embarrassing.
And all without a single junior dev in the open office hearing their genius. Aside from the junior dev who bought the fucking thing in the vain hope they could roleplay as a more competent employee. That junior dev can hear themself going “no, fuck, delete, how do I- no, stop typing, you stupid fucking thing”, which I assume counts as “genius”.
Hang on. They had to ship three major updates in a single morning? How the hell is their workflow so bad that they have to- Oh yeah. Vibecoding.
If you see anyone wearing this shit, remember that you can laugh at how stupid they look as much as you want, and their weak copium that it’s a “skill issue” will be swallowed by their copium mask. So you’re free to laugh until they cry.
Alternate version:
“While you’re there, pick up some bread,” she added. He never returned.
Since this is an AI metaphor, the restaurant didn’t hire a cook. They just found a cook with an easily accessible oven and stole a pizza from it.
Hi, sleep deprived. I’m dad! (See how that works?)
isn’t the easiest sell in the privacy community
This is the easiest way to tell this is a bot. They don’t even know what community they’re posting their ad to.
You don’t understand why an unfunny ad on a humour community with a rule against ads is getting downvoted?
RT*** isn’t pointing at RT*, he’s pointing at the TV showing RT**. The fact you think otherwise is what makes the image unclear. I’m not sure why you insist on them being wrong.
I think int*** is meant to be pointing at int**, but the image is just unclear about where everything is in perspective.
You can also get down from a duck, like I said. Why the heck did you post this?
Don’t be such a downer.
LLMs are random. Its weighted randomness that frequently values racist outputs like whitewashing a crowd or calling black people monkies (to name two recent examples), but it is still random. That’s why you can ask it the same question twice and get two different answers.
Ever notice how AI defenders try to pretend the technology is better than it is, and brush past the countless failings and ethical failures inherent to the technology by condemning humanity? A bad toolsmith blames the worker, I guess. At a certain point, if the technology is only doing bad things, or doing things badly, it might just be bad technology.
It makes mistakes with an alarming frequency, all with the same confident tone of writing as when it says anything else. It’s wrong so often that you’d need to use another source of information just to confirm it, which defeats the point in using AI in the first place!
It’s not smarter than the smartest humans, or even AS smart as them, or even as smart as REGULAR humans. It’s not even smart. It’s a magic eight ball that sometimes has the correct answer by pure chance. No intellect. No reasoning. Just probability.
Also: It steals from just about everyone; it encourages suicides and mass shootings; it’s frequently racist in its outputs; it’s burning, boiling and polluting the planet; it’s being forced on people who don’t want it; and billionares are using it to manipulate people. Probably some other stuff I forgot to mention.
Just in case you weren’t sure why AI is bad.
Oi! I’m a lazy programmer with no friends, and I will not take this slander!
Surely, the energy cost to verify the translation would be the same as translating it? If you’re struggling that much, why are you translating it at all? I cannot trust your translation.
If you tell an LLM to generate reports, it will, regardless of the actual quality of the environment. It doesn’t know what’s secure and what isn’t. All you’ve shown it to do is convince the kinds of security analysts with a system so insecure as to have a LOT of good reports that their system is more secure than it is. Which is useless at best, detrimental at worst.
It’s useless for translation. It’s useless for security analysis. It’s useless for rhyming (I notice you didn’t mention that one). You’re trying so hard to prove how useful it is, and your failure demonstrates how useless it is.
You can’t condemn confident wrongness and defend LLMs. And you can’t defend the billionaire’s toxic Nazi plagiarism machine while questioning someone else’s morals. You can’t cherry-pick my argument and claim I’m the one fighting a strawman. …Well, not if you’re arguing in good faith.
If you know enough to verify a translation as accurate, or you have the tools to figure out an accurate translation through dictionaries or some such, then you know enough to do the translation yourself. If you don’t, then I cannot trust your translation.
And if you can’t trust the output to be comprehensive or correct, then why would you trust something like system security to an LLM? Any security analyst who deserves their job would never take that risk. You don’t cut those corners.
Quick reminder: rhyming dictionaries exist. LLMs solved a solved problem, but worse.
Once again, even if the billionaire’s toxic Nazi plagiarism machine was useful, it is so morally repugnant that it should never be used, which makes it functionally useless. This is an absolute statement, but trying to “um actually” that makes you look like either a boot-licker, a pollutant, a Nazi, a plagiarist, an idiot, or some combination of those.
I would rather look like an absolutist. How about you?
The only way to know if LLM output is accurate is to know what an accurate output should look like, and if you know that, you don’t need an LLM. If you don’t know what an accurate output should look like, an LLM is equally likely to confidently lie to you as it is to help you, making you dumber the more you use it. The only other situation is if you know what an accurate output should look like, but you want an inaccurate one, which is a bad thing to encourage.
“Demonstrably useful” is a lie. It’s a blatant and obvious lie. LLMs are so actively detrimental to their users, and society as a whole, that calling them useless is being generous. And even if they were the most beneficial thing on the planet, there is still no reason to use the billionaire’s toxic Nazi plagiarism machine.
No they don’t, but say whatever you need to ignore me. That’s definitely what someone arguing in good faith would do.
Citation needed.
Quite the opposite, actually. It causes enormous problems and has no benefits that aren’t better served by existing technologies that lack those problems.