The main use case for LLMs is writing text nobody wanted to read. The other use case is summarizing text nobody wanted to read. Except they don’t do that either. The Australian Securities and…
Yeah, I get that this is a place to vent. And I get why to vent about this. LLMs and other A"I" systems (with quotation marks because this shite is not intelligent!) are being shoved down every bloody where, regardless of actual usefulness, safety, or user desire. Telling you to put glue on your pizza, to eat poisonous mushrooms, that “cherish” has five letters, that Latin had no [w], that the Chinese are inferior to Westerners.
While a crowd of irrationals tell you “it is intelligent, you can’t prove otherwise! CHRUST IT YOU DIRTY SCEPTIC/INFIDEL/LUDDITE REEEE! LALALA I’M PRETENDING TO NOT SEE THE HALLUCINATION LALALA”.
I also get the privacy nightmare that this shit is. And the whole deal behind “we’re using your content as training data, and then selling the result back to you”. Or that it’s eating electricity like there’s no tomorrow, in a planet where global warming is a present issue.
I get it. I get it all. That’s why I’m here. And if you (or anyone else) think that I’m here for any other reason, by all means, check my profile - you’ll find plenty pieces of criticism against those stupid corporate AI takes from vulture capital. (And plenty instances of me calling HN “Redditors LARPing as Hax0rz”. )
However. Pretending that there’s no use case ever for LLMs is the wrong way to go.
and thinking this is high school debate club fallacy
If calling it “nirvana fallacy” rubs you the wrong way, here’s an alternative: “this argument is fucking stupid, in a very specific way: it pretends that either something is perfect or it’s useless, with no middle ground.”
The other user however does not deserve the unnecessary abrasiveness so I’ll keep simply calling it “nirvana fallacy”.
fucking right! there’s this unearned assumption that just because the tech’s been invented, it must have worth. and, like, no? there’s so many dead ends in science and technology, and notoriously throwing money at something doesn’t change its fundamental nature
and now I’m pissed and trying to decide if it’s even worth explicitly adding “don’t be a debatelord asshole” to the TechTakes sidebar, cause it’s not like they’re gonna stop
Holy shit, imagine crying “waah, debatelord!” because someone is trying to follow some non-fallacious = non-fucking-stupid reasoning here. It’s almost like you want a circlejerk on the exact same level as those muppets burning effigies, just with the opposite discourse.
I agree, you’re quite right, and I thank you for taking the time and putting in the effort on such a wonderfully thorough portrayal of why your argument is total horseshit
I agree, you’re quite right, and I think [thank] you for taking the time and putting in the effort on such a wonderfully thorough portrayal of why your argument is total horseshit
Me: “yeah, I get why you’re venting, those people saying that 2+2=5 are stupid. However we shouldn’t be claiming that 2+2=3 either, it’s also stupid. 2+2=4.”
You: “think u for proving that ppl who think that 2+2 is not 3, like you’re self, are wrong! lol lmao haha”
If this isn’t clear enough, I’m saying that both sides are wrong - both the people who are hyping AI and shoving it everywhere, and the people trying to dismiss it as completely useless. Is this clear now?
Stop throwing the baby out with the dirty bathtub water dammit.
Yeah, I get that this is a place to vent. And I get why to vent about this. LLMs and other A"I" systems (with quotation marks because this shite is not intelligent!) are being shoved down every bloody where, regardless of actual usefulness, safety, or user desire. Telling you to put glue on your pizza, to eat poisonous mushrooms, that “cherish” has five letters, that Latin had no [w], that the Chinese are inferior to Westerners.
While a crowd of irrationals tell you “it is intelligent, you can’t prove otherwise! CHRUST IT YOU DIRTY SCEPTIC/INFIDEL/LUDDITE REEEE! LALALA I’M PRETENDING TO NOT SEE THE HALLUCINATION LALALA”.
I also get the privacy nightmare that this shit is. And the whole deal behind “we’re using your content as training data, and then selling the result back to you”. Or that it’s eating electricity like there’s no tomorrow, in a planet where global warming is a present issue.
I get it. I get it all. That’s why I’m here. And if you (or anyone else) think that I’m here for any other reason, by all means, check my profile - you’ll find plenty pieces of criticism against those stupid corporate AI takes from vulture capital. (And plenty instances of me calling HN “Redditors LARPing as Hax0rz”. )
However. Pretending that there’s no use case ever for LLMs is the wrong way to go.
If calling it “nirvana fallacy” rubs you the wrong way, here’s an alternative: “this argument is fucking stupid, in a very specific way: it pretends that either something is perfect or it’s useless, with no middle ground.”
The other user however does not deserve the unnecessary abrasiveness so I’ll keep simply calling it “nirvana fallacy”.
holy shit, imagine getting a second chance to not be a fucking debatelord and doubling down this hard
off you fuck
phallusy fallacy: posting like a cock
Since you’re the mod here, let me ask you.
People just out here acting like a fundamentally, inextricably unreliable and unethical technology has a “use case”
smdh
fucking right! there’s this unearned assumption that just because the tech’s been invented, it must have worth. and, like, no? there’s so many dead ends in science and technology, and notoriously throwing money at something doesn’t change its fundamental nature
and now I’m pissed and trying to decide if it’s even worth explicitly adding “don’t be a debatelord asshole” to the TechTakes sidebar, cause it’s not like they’re gonna stop
“We’re not saying it doesn’t have its flaws, but you need to appreciate the potential of the radium cockring!”
to wildly abword a phrase I’ve seen elsewhere: “idiocy can remain solvent longer than you can”
I literally showed a use case.
Myself highlighted that it’s unreliable plenty times across this comment chain.
I highlighted the lack of ethics at least once.
Still the same nirvana fallacy as the other user.
Holy shit, imagine crying “waah, debatelord!” because someone is trying to follow some non-fallacious = non-fucking-stupid reasoning here. It’s almost like you want a circlejerk on the exact same level as those muppets burning effigies, just with the opposite discourse.
I agree, you’re quite right, and I thank you for taking the time and putting in the effort on such a wonderfully thorough portrayal of why your argument is total horseshit
Me: “yeah, I get why you’re venting, those people saying that 2+2=5 are stupid. However we shouldn’t be claiming that 2+2=3 either, it’s also stupid. 2+2=4.”
You: “think u for proving that ppl who think that 2+2 is not 3, like you’re self, are wrong! lol lmao haha”
If this isn’t clear enough, I’m saying that both sides are wrong - both the people who are hyping AI and shoving it everywhere, and the people trying to dismiss it as completely useless. Is this clear now?
Stop throwing the baby out with the dirty bathtub water dammit.