Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Other than having to scroll down an extra 3 centimeters to see your Google results, have you actually been inconvenienced by ai being used somewhere? All this outrageous about terrible ai getting in the way all the time is hilarious because it is absolutely manufactured by people who are obsessed with complaining and then parroted by people incapable of thinking for themselves. Nobody’s actually living worse lives because a few companies are trying out new tech. The fact of the matter is that there are obnoxious karens online, just like in real life.

You seem like someone who is probably self-righteous, obnoxious, and annoying to be around in real life, just like you are online.

Because the headline goes along with all the people that thoughtlessly think ai is pointless, but the blog post itself is an incoherent mess that actually sometimes talks about how ai is useful and rapidly improving. It is a rambling mess. People who read it realise this. People who just read the headline assume it will say what they think. The chances that you made it through that whole thing are slim to none, but sure, maybe you read it, whatever. Congratulations, I’m sure it really improved your understanding.

What a good full set of possibilities since it’s certainly impossible for anyone on the internet to lie. How fun for a blog to contradict its main point.

Yeah, this is exactly what I think it is. I’m a bit concerned about how hard it’s going to hit a large number of people when they realize that they’re echo chamber of “LLMs are garbage and have no benefits” was so completely wrong. I agree that there are scary aspects of all this, but pretending like they don’t exist will just make it harder to deal with. It’s like denying that the smoke alarm is going off until your arm is on fire.

There is literally not a chance that anyone downvoting this actually read it. It’s just a bunch of idiots that read the title, like the idea that llms suck and so they downvoted. This paper is absolute nonsense that doesn’t even attempt to make a point. I seriously think it is ppprly ai generated and just taking the piss out of idiots that love anything they think is anti-ai, whatever that means.

This is that super forward-thinking EU tech protection we are always hearing about that the whole world should be so jealous of.

It blatantly contradicts itself. I would wager good money that you read the headline and didn’t go much further because you assumed it was agreeing with you. Despite the subject matter, this is objectively horribly written. It lacks a cohesive narrative.

Yes, and then you take the time to dig a little deeper and use something agent based like aider or crewai or autogen. It is amazing how many people are stuck in the mindset of “if the simplest tools from over a year aren’t very good, then there’s no way there are any good tools now.”

It’s like seeing the original Planet of the Apes and then arguing against how realistic the Apes are in the new movies without ever seeing them. Sure, you can convince people who really want unrealistic Apes to be the reality, and people who only saw the original, but you’ll do nothing for anyone who actually saw the new movies.

Yeah, this paper is time wasted. It is hilarious that they think that 3 years is a long time as a data scientists and this somehow gives them such wisdom. Then, they can’t even accurately extract the data from the chart that they posted in the article. On top of all this, like you pointed out, they can’t even keep a clear narrative, and they blatantly contradict themself on their main point. They want to pile drive people who come to the same conclusion as themself. What a strange take.

I don’t know how much stock to put in this author. They can’t even read the chart that they shared. They saw that 8% didn’t get use from gen ai and so assumed that 92% did. There are also 7% that haven’t tried using it yet. Ironically, pretty much any LLM with vision would have done a better job of comprehending the chart than this author did.

Good answer, no way AI will possibly ever catch up to such brilliant responses as this. Certainly, there is no reason to want to have our views represented in the next generation of technology.

You could have a much more complex understanding of what they are. It isn’t nearly as simple as you are imagining. If you genuinely are curious about what you’re overlooking, then here is a link.

https://situational-awareness.ai/

If you are genuinely open to understanding the path we are on, the new situational awareness paper would be very eye-opening. It is 160 pages, so it’s probably a bit too much to get through, but there are really good videos that explain it. Matthew Berman has a great video about it. I’m not interested in swaying you and not going to debate, I’m 100s of hours deep into this and have been absolutely obsessed with it. Nobody doubted its impact as much as me. Education on the matter will undeniably change your mind tremendously. The information is there if you want a peak at the future.

https://situational-awareness.ai/

Thanks so much for taking the time to explain this. I was just going to give them a link.

It’s a much much bigger issue than this. Would you rather live in a world where other countries have good AI and you do not? Would you like it if only China has powerful AI? I get the copyright issue, but some things are more important than other things. This is an arms race, and everyone slowing down isn’t exactly an option.

Is it definitely a W that EU perspectives won’t be as represented in the AI programs that we are all using?

You complained about the Facebook engagement algorithm. I said they should be allowed to run the code and people use it if they choose. You disagreed.

It is a bit weird that you’ve flipped over to my side, and now you want freedom, and you’re trying to put me over on your original side. It’s nice that we both agree now. Nice chatting.

It’s not only advertisers. It is a need for engagement. Facebook makes money if people are engaged, both from advertisement and selling data. People prefer to use platforms that have lots of money to put into the user experince. Maybe this will change as people become more aware, maybe with things like the fediverse.

Oftentimes, things like murder and insider trading are at least attempted to be stopped, I don’t know what your point is there. This was a discussion on whether or not the government should stop Facebook from having code that keeps users engaged. I said it is better if the government doesn’t verify all the code that makes it on the internet. That is what the government does in places like North Korea.