• 1 Post
  • 37 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 30th, 2024

help-circle

  • I partially agree. If forced by stupid management results would clearly be worse.

    Also people using LLM as search engines have a lot to do with internet entshitification. Surfing the web have become so obnoxious that asking an LLM the answer to something is easier.

    This have two obvious conclusions from my point of view. First is that the best scenario would be a not entshitified internet. Second is that when LLMs, specially the big ones owned by big companies, get their dose of entshitification, users will be back on square one of not having a good way of extracting information out of this massive sea of information that we have built and which should be much easier to navigate.


  • Not really true.

    LLM valuation in the market is aimed at several things, making unskilled people appear skilled is the smallest of them.

    The most valuable position in the market right now is as a substitute of search enginesm

    The second most valuable position in the market is as a tool to speed up work for already skilled people.

    And I would argue that the third most valuable position in the market is a bot tool to substitute human iteration.

    Unskilled people doing slop might be the most visible face of AI as it’s very annoying but it’s a minority of it’s market, just a very loud minority.


  • That blog post is just a bunch of insults to anyone not agreeing with the writer without actually giving any elaborate or truthful argument on why is not just a tool and it’s always inherently “evil”.

    Some arguments made can be easily disproven. For instance the climate change one.

    They main point of the post is that “no matter how you use LLMs”. But then the argument given here it’s highly dependant on how you use them. The amount of environmental damage of LLMs completely depends on which LLMs you use, how you use them and how often you use them. This just here it’s showing the irrationally of the blog author.

    But it goes one, next point is economics. Which is also 100% dependant on HOW YOU USE IT. Not all LLM are made by big evil corporations, and there’s nothing in the technology preventing it being made by anyone.

    For a blog post whose main argument is that saying “it depends how you use it” is wrong, have only give arguments that are dependant on how you use. The author makes broad ignorant assumptions about how people use LLMs, asserts that everyone uses them like that and then pretends to control everyone lives based of that. That way of thinking is highly dangerous and it’s what have given birth to a lot of evil on our world. We need to be better, more rational, more open minded. Not falling for easy politics and actually do complex political thinking that won’t give simple answers to complex questions.















  • I glimpsed though the article and I didn’t see it.

    It said it used frequency of words for determination of AI usage.

    Did it consider that AI is mostly trained of those papers and thus AI detection methods could not be as accurate as thought by the ones making this analysis?

    Did the just considered general “generic AI repeated words” or did the actually used a frequency analysis of the actual fingerprint left by the LMM that companies put there for forensic analysis (and that I don’t ever know of the companies are publishing the signatures they use).