The remarks from the expert in this article, even as critical as they are, grossly understate just how foolish and messed up this is.
-
RE: https://flipboard.com/@futurism/futurism-1lupih3cz/-/a-hWRkyR9zQFuooBpWKGziAw%3Aa%3A1737388686-%2F0
The remarks from the expert in this article, even as critical as they are, grossly understate just how foolish and messed up this is.
“We didn’t conduct a poll, we just asked GPT or whatever to make up things people would say and then sampled that”
My dudes. No.
@inthehands @mastodonmigration @Futurism
I think polls should all include the question:
Did you find any of these questions leading?
And be required to publish that result next to any results along with those that commissioned, paid for, the poll.
-
Say what you will about predicting the future from animal entrails, but at least that can give you dinner
@inthehands Can I quote you on that?
-
@inthehands Can I quote you on that?
@drwho
Any time -
@drwho
Any time@inthehands Thank you kindly.
-
RE: https://flipboard.com/@futurism/futurism-1lupih3cz/-/a-hWRkyR9zQFuooBpWKGziAw%3Aa%3A1737388686-%2F0
The remarks from the expert in this article, even as critical as they are, grossly understate just how foolish and messed up this is.
“We didn’t conduct a poll, we just asked GPT or whatever to make up things people would say and then sampled that”
My dudes. No.
@inthehands This is just a fancy new way of making shit up.
Publishing fabricated polls as if they were legit, is called "fraud".
-
OK, I looked at it in slightly more detail, and yes, my OP is basically a correct summary of what they’re doing.
Statistical Jesus wept.
@inthehands And not just statistics! I’ve also seen certain linguists and philosophers excited about the possibility of posing grammatical/ethical judgments to LLMs in bulk, apparently fully convinced that the results would hold any meaning or value whatsoever. Can’t wait for the smug “Trolley problem objectively solved” papers
-
OK, I looked at it in slightly more detail, and yes, my OP is basically a correct summary of what they’re doing.
Statistical Jesus wept.
@inthehands 97.5% of Jesuses wept, +/- 2%.
-
Say what you will about predicting the future from animal entrails, but at least that can give you dinner
@inthehands I prefer not to dissect animals to do my personal share of fortune telling.
Observing the flight of birds does not harm the environment and the analysis of it has the accuracy and potential of what is stored in my subconcius and my own filter of values.And I'm serious. I whatch birds fly and ask myself, what does it tell me.
And at no point I doubt that this is less accurate than asking an llm.
I have to decide things anyways somehow to do what seems right to me.
-
(The underlying logic here is that LLMs embed biases, so you take advantage of that fact by prompting an LLM to take on a spectrum of different demographic biases that correspond to population demographics, then ask the LLM a polling question in the context of each of those demographically weighted biases.
So yeah, from my OP it might sound like they’re replacing polling with stabbing themselves in the face, but •actually• they’re juggling a bunch of knives and •then• stabbing themselves in the face.)
@inthehands there is no logic here. These people are just cultists.
from the Aaru about page: “Some of us are existentialists. Some of us believe we live in a simulation and it is our goal to prove it. All of us see our products as puzzle pieces to building whole world simulation.”
-
@rjblaskiewicz @inthehands
It's just offal.@gnate @rjblaskiewicz @inthehands Entrail-based fortunetelling gets more complicated if the chicken ate tea leaves before it died.
-
RE: https://flipboard.com/@futurism/futurism-1lupih3cz/-/a-hWRkyR9zQFuooBpWKGziAw%3Aa%3A1737388686-%2F0
The remarks from the expert in this article, even as critical as they are, grossly understate just how foolish and messed up this is.
“We didn’t conduct a poll, we just asked GPT or whatever to make up things people would say and then sampled that”
My dudes. No.
It took Koch Network decades to achieve "corporate personhood" with Citizens United.
https://inthesetimes.com/article/on-the-road-against-citizens-united
Corporations can outvote real people.
What happens when "AI personhood" is achieved & also outvotes real people?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/30/artificial-intelligence-personhood
https://daveshap.substack.com/p/taking-the-ai-personhood-debate-seriously
What happens when fake AI voters are purchased in bulk by Putin?
https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/the-dangers-of-artificial-intelligence-is-unavoidable-due-to-flaws-of-human-civilization-f9c131e65e5eWhat happens when women, Immigrants, POC, & LGBTQ become non-people?
-
(The underlying logic here is that LLMs embed biases, so you take advantage of that fact by prompting an LLM to take on a spectrum of different demographic biases that correspond to population demographics, then ask the LLM a polling question in the context of each of those demographically weighted biases.
So yeah, from my OP it might sound like they’re replacing polling with stabbing themselves in the face, but •actually• they’re juggling a bunch of knives and •then• stabbing themselves in the face.)
THANK you. @inthehands I have been arguing with a classmate for weeks about them using "synthetic" data for transportation class. Ugh. I know I get a little incoherent with anger about AI stuff, but I do not think we should be doing statistical analysis of made-up data. We can have actual data, if we just do a little work to get it. UGH.
-
RE: https://flipboard.com/@futurism/futurism-1lupih3cz/-/a-hWRkyR9zQFuooBpWKGziAw%3Aa%3A1737388686-%2F0
The remarks from the expert in this article, even as critical as they are, grossly understate just how foolish and messed up this is.
“We didn’t conduct a poll, we just asked GPT or whatever to make up things people would say and then sampled that”
My dudes. No.
@inthehands fair point, this is likely a case of AI slop (and questionable marketing)!
But "obviously a terrible alternative"? As far as I'm concerned it sounds like a pretty reasonable thing to try.
And, It might even work quite well, but only for an LLM trained without RLHF, instruction tuning, and big tech putting their hands on it. The bias there would be from the data distribution (same problem they have in the old method, "who picks up the phone?")
-
RE: https://flipboard.com/@futurism/futurism-1lupih3cz/-/a-hWRkyR9zQFuooBpWKGziAw%3Aa%3A1737388686-%2F0
The remarks from the expert in this article, even as critical as they are, grossly understate just how foolish and messed up this is.
“We didn’t conduct a poll, we just asked GPT or whatever to make up things people would say and then sampled that”
My dudes. No.
@inthehands @bfaliszek Dear god. They are no poolsters, they are part of „tech bros”. I have recently listened to podcast where real poolster debunked this and all prediction markets. In both cases level of confidence is galaxy apart from good statistics.
So yeah, another LLM bullshit. -
P pelle@veganism.social shared this topic
