Ah but they badly mimic it very quickly!
I can be writing buggy code in a fraction of the time it took me to steal those code snippets myself.
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
347 points (93.1% liked)
Fuck AI
2837 readers
397 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"It'Ll GeT BEttEr OVEr timE!"
*Proceeds to get worse over time.
Generative AI is the equivalent of 2 stoners asking themselves "OK, what now?" a million times a second.
I'm in a really odd position, in that I've always been a futurist and massive tech fan. I thought that I would be signing up for any AI tooling as soon as it appeared, chip in my head, bionic eye, the whole nine singularity yards.
What I've found instead is a disgust with the concept, the way it's been implemented, the big tech arseholes at the top of the money grabbing companies that have driven it all to it's current omnipresent position.
I want my AI, under my control and with my best interests at heart doing helpful things for me at my behest and control. It's what I was promised in all those sci fi books, not this commercial pap.
I think "AI" is really insulting to people who want new interesting, innovative tech.
It's the same ML algorithms we have had for decades repackaged under an LLM and sold as "Intelligence"
It's marketing teams hyping up tech that has existed since the 90s in absence of real innovation.
"intelligent", no they certainly aren't that.
"Wave of the future", unfortunately yes. They are. AI is entering nearly every field, and to ignore that because you desperately want to believe that's not the case is just burning your head in the sand. It absolutely is the wave of the future, it's just not a very good future.
I'm guessing its a typo but burning your head in the sand sounds better then the traditional version
Not a big AI guy but the last line is dumb as hell. LLMs can be insanely useful when used by the right people.
Should have guessed it'd be a bad take by the "friendly reminder" opener but they clearly don't see LLMs as a tool, they see it as the end product which is just ignorant.
What do you think they are useful for? Be aware I'm going to argue against any answer you give with fervor.
There's so many casual examples that LLMs excel at. Learning a second language? Having something that can break down context, provide examples, or have practice conversations with is incredibly helpful and easy with LLMs. There's an endless amount of little things it makes easier and is great at: planning a trip and want a quick itinerary suggestion? Need help running a Dungeons and Dragons campaign? Want something to help you summarize a topic or plan you a basic learning on a topic? There's so many valid helpful uses where is faster or better than current options.
It hallucinates at a percentage that makes it completely unusuable for all of those tasks. If it's strictly inferior to non-LLM solutions for all of these problems then clearly you're better off not using it at all.
You can search up an itinerary for popular tourism locations.
There are platforms, free or paid, that teach you a second language instead of making random shit up.
There are countless DnD campaigns you can find online or tools to make planning them easy.
You can learn that 2+2=4 and not 5, or logic puzzles which are variations of common ones that ChatGPT are incapable of parsing due to its statistical nature, for free from sites like Khan Academy.
ChatGPT is shit, mate. It has no concept of anything, it just generates the next token in a chain of tokens until it produces some garbage which roughly approximates an answer. Why not just get an actual answer 100% accurate to human output from a real person?
It's okay to hate on the "AI" hype train but it does yourself a disservice to completely ignore the places where it's better than current alternatives. You obviously haven't used it for these tasks because to say it hallucinates most of the time is just factually wrong. The ability to have a direct conversation with it to get ideas and explanations makes it such a powerful tool for the topics I brought up.
Also if you think LLMs lie most of the time but then say the things you find on the internet are 100% true and factual. My brother, you need to take a step back.
I'm not ignoring anything, and in fact the only stance so far against my argument is to ignore the reasons I gave. A real pot to the kettle moment.
You say that things on the internet aren't 100% factual? Okay, now realize THAT is the data that the LLMs are trained on. So 85% accurate to THAT is still WORSE.
I think you're really overestimating how much it fails. I've had great success with language translation, and for everything I've studied using it, it can be used as a great aggregator for tools and resources. Way faster than digging through SEO crap spewed out everywhere on the web. Another thing to realise is that the traditional search engine is dead. It sucks at indexing compared to AI. I don't know about you, but I don't like having to end at least 60% of my searches with 'reddit' to find a non-SEO result.
Personally, I don't know what most people use AI for, but it's been fantastic for turning natural language questions into great leads for further research (which I do with a normal browser). Definitely a huge time save not having to start my research by skimming 15 articles looking for a specific keyword which makes a concept click, or to even discover a concept at all.
I want to be clear I'm not talking about the layman here (though I hear chatgpt is pretty good at creating quizzes based on notes you give it) - actual scientific work is being done with the help of LLMs
A concrete example of this would be www.OpenCatalystProject.com or IBM using it to discover a new COVID drug.
I'd bring up all the machine learning breakthroughs - of which there are likely hundreds - but I'd imagine you'd skewer me as they're not LANGUAGE models (which is fair as I said LLM, not ML).
What you won't hear me defending AI marketed to the masses. Pretty much any value it provides is offset by the things mentioned in the OP. But for science? Hell yeah keep up the good work
You're right those arent fucking LLMs, stick with the program. Everybody else in here is talking about one specific thing and its not research oriented machine learning algorithms. It's bullshit generators.
This is the exact same technology, as if using semantic reasoning will make your argument any stronger
You were supposed to argue with fervor, not make stuff up..
You're wrong, they both use LLMs.
Any research using LLM, not on it, is publishing bullshit.
Why double down on being wrong? My two examples aren't publishing bullshit.
If OP was only talking about chatgpt and the like, maybe they should have said that instead of lumping all LLMs together??
Either way I think we're done here, a shame you never actually argued with fervor
Fine then:
-
IBM - Not an LLM
-
Meta Open Catalyst - Not an LLM
In fact the Open Catalyst in the paper specifically compares it's model to LLMs in that both different models improved with larger datasets (and increased processing power).
Eat shit
-
IBM DeepSearch. But you're half right, the drug I was thinking of was BenevolentAI...using an LLM similar to IBM.
-
CatBERTa
But nice try. Eat shit, I guess
So, a data-hoarding pirate who is also a prolific fanfic writer?
Not that bright... I've just read a lot of books, so I can talk to most people about most things, but I have zero functional knowledge on the subjects in question....
Am I an llm?
I watched a video lately suggesting that LLMs are more sophisticated than just simple text auto fill bots.