I am asking people once again to stop describing #AI using human words and attributes.
-
I am asking people once again to stop describing #AI using human words and attributes.
AI doesn’t answer—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be right.
AI doesn’t hallucinate—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be wrong.
AI doesn’t have agency—it regurgitates plausible output that is consumed by a computer program.
AI doesn’t think—it regurgitates plausible output that is fed back into itself to try again.
AI doesn’t create—it regurgitates a mixture of its training data.Remember: the robot is not a person.
@drahardja
Replace the word "AI" with "human" in that statement and it would still be true. -
@drahardja
assimilated ? categorized ? grouped ? patterned ? -
I am asking people once again to stop describing #AI using human words and attributes.
AI doesn’t answer—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be right.
AI doesn’t hallucinate—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be wrong.
AI doesn’t have agency—it regurgitates plausible output that is consumed by a computer program.
AI doesn’t think—it regurgitates plausible output that is fed back into itself to try again.
AI doesn’t create—it regurgitates a mixture of its training data.Remember: the robot is not a person.
@drahardja we describe various phenomena using human words and attributes because we are human
(And computers were thinking at least since someone implemented an hourglass icon in them)
-
I am asking people once again to stop describing #AI using human words and attributes.
AI doesn’t answer—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be right.
AI doesn’t hallucinate—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be wrong.
AI doesn’t have agency—it regurgitates plausible output that is consumed by a computer program.
AI doesn’t think—it regurgitates plausible output that is fed back into itself to try again.
AI doesn’t create—it regurgitates a mixture of its training data.Remember: the robot is not a person.
There's also the option of adding quotes around "AI", as a way to indicate "so-called, not what it actually is".
-
I am asking people once again to stop describing #AI using human words and attributes.
AI doesn’t answer—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be right.
AI doesn’t hallucinate—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be wrong.
AI doesn’t have agency—it regurgitates plausible output that is consumed by a computer program.
AI doesn’t think—it regurgitates plausible output that is fed back into itself to try again.
AI doesn’t create—it regurgitates a mixture of its training data.Remember: the robot is not a person.
@drahardja +1000
-
I am asking people once again to stop describing #AI using human words and attributes.
AI doesn’t answer—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be right.
AI doesn’t hallucinate—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be wrong.
AI doesn’t have agency—it regurgitates plausible output that is consumed by a computer program.
AI doesn’t think—it regurgitates plausible output that is fed back into itself to try again.
AI doesn’t create—it regurgitates a mixture of its training data.Remember: the robot is not a person.
@drahardja
I think bullshit machine is adequate.
Maybe not exactly nice towards the bull and shit in general. At least it's not a human condition (usually). -
I am asking people once again to stop describing #AI using human words and attributes.
AI doesn’t answer—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be right.
AI doesn’t hallucinate—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be wrong.
AI doesn’t have agency—it regurgitates plausible output that is consumed by a computer program.
AI doesn’t think—it regurgitates plausible output that is fed back into itself to try again.
AI doesn’t create—it regurgitates a mixture of its training data.Remember: the robot is not a person.
@drahardja Given how less smart humans produce answers, we'd rather hope not to know with these details how their model works…
-
@drahardja
I think bullshit machine is adequate.
Maybe not exactly nice towards the bull and shit in general. At least it's not a human condition (usually).@gunstick @drahardja Bullshit machines would produce bullshit no matter what kind of input you give. The Autocompletion Parrot doesn't. If you manage to guide it to autocomplete a good conversation starter, you can somewhat get something not too far from what you could have written yourself.
-
@gunstick @drahardja Bullshit machines would produce bullshit no matter what kind of input you give. The Autocompletion Parrot doesn't. If you manage to guide it to autocomplete a good conversation starter, you can somewhat get something not too far from what you could have written yourself.
@forthy42 @drahardja oh yes indeed. User error. By the meme "every machine is a smoke machine if operated wrong enough" I present you the "every AI is a bullshit machine if prompted wrong enough"
-
@lehtimaeki @drahardja There's no A either.
@mrgrumpymonkey @lehtimaeki @drahardja It actually is a compression function of human generated text together with a probability optimizer to decompress the most likely text.
So yes, it's not intelligent, and it is not artificial. It is just another sloppy way to search the Internet, and find something that is close, but not actually there.
-
@forthy42 @drahardja oh yes indeed. User error. By the meme "every machine is a smoke machine if operated wrong enough" I present you the "every AI is a bullshit machine if prompted wrong enough"
@gunstick @drahardja Sometimes it is hard to get an AI to accept the bullshit we humans created.
I wanted Deepseek to summarize the Iran war Trump started. It told me this war doesn't exist. I gave it Web Sites from established and reliable sources to read. It said someone managed to inject a hoax there or that it is a satirical fiction. Nobody, not even Donald Trump would be that stupid to start this war!
It was really hard work to get it to accept that our timeline is not only the one where Biff Tannen became president, but the one where Idiocracy happened already in 2025.
It was really funny to see how the training to prevent bullshit output turned against the bullshit we have in our reality.
-
I am asking people once again to stop describing #AI using human words and attributes.
AI doesn’t answer—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be right.
AI doesn’t hallucinate—it regurgitates plausible output that happens to be wrong.
AI doesn’t have agency—it regurgitates plausible output that is consumed by a computer program.
AI doesn’t think—it regurgitates plausible output that is fed back into itself to try again.
AI doesn’t create—it regurgitates a mixture of its training data.Remember: the robot is not a person.
@drahardja Chat bots (etc.) only "say"and "claim" things, "give answers", "tell" you things, "advice" you, and so on, in the same sense that a textbook or any other text "says" or "claims" things etc. And as in the case of other texts it is the author or publisher who, in the last analysis, is responsible for everything said or claimed etc. in the text, so with "AI" generated text. What we should do is hold tech giants responsible for what is said etc in AI generated text. They're the "authors".
-
@jairajdevadiga @drahardja I think you know what I meant, though.
@robin_wren @jairajdevadiga @drahardja it makes me sick every time when someone goes "nature invented this or that feature of a living otgsnism"
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
