A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear The thing I expect and fear how we end up: Courts will indeed figure out that the slop machine is regurgitating what it was “trained” with. But, as usual, because courts protect big companies, they will grant Disney a right to take a share of the money the LLMs make, but not the individual artist. Why and how? They will argue that while Disney as a big company has such a vast amount of material taken for training, it does matter to the output, but the individual artist didn't, it's just a minor contribution that doesn't count.
The slop machine also stole what ample of free software programmers uploaded to GitHub. That's why it seems to be able to program better than your average programmer, but still makes beginner's mistakes.
-
T tokeriis@helvede.net shared this topic
-
@thirstybear Also, fire does have constructive uses. Not so LLMs.
@thirstybear I think they mean machine learning, not llms
-
@thirstybear I think they mean machine learning, not llms
LLMs are like AN/FO explosive when compared to most uses of machine learning style fire.
"You object to me blowing up your house but I see you using a gas stove."
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear Ban fire, of course!
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear Ah, thanks for sharing it. I found the quote on Bsky and shared it over there.
-
@thirstybear
why plural? and why is he not on mastodon???
@TripTilt @thirstybear He is: @scalzi
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear very aptly put!
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear I enjoyed his book about the accidental supervillain! What else of his should I read next?
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear in my long quest to find AI any use, I found "one shot usage programs". So you generate them once. They do a thing by only running once, and then you never ever need them again. Especially you don't need to maintain them as you delete the program immediately after use.
That's a very specific use case. Security researchers do that. -
@thirstybear I enjoyed his book about the accidental supervillain! What else of his should I read next?
@dneary
Redshirts, The Kaiju Preservation Society
@thirstybear -
B bogwitch@social.data.coop shared this topic
-
LLMs are like AN/FO explosive when compared to most uses of machine learning style fire.
"You object to me blowing up your house but I see you using a gas stove."
@resuna @yugthebug @jmax @thirstybear You probably use an ML system every time you spend money - every transaction is fraud scored at some point, some multiple times.
-
@thirstybear I enjoyed his book about the accidental supervillain! What else of his should I read next?
@dneary @thirstybear The Old Man's War series is really good.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear - and this assunes there is, in fact, legitimate uses for AI, which very muchremains to be proven...
-
@thirstybear - and this assunes there is, in fact, legitimate uses for AI, which very muchremains to be proven...
JWcph, Radicalized By Decency It’s been very good foor the rapid spread if disinformation!
-
@thirstybear I enjoyed his book about the accidental supervillain! What else of his should I read next?
@dneary @thirstybear the Old Man's War series is pretty good
-
P pelle@veganism.social shared this topic
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear One problem with this analogy is that the people talking about the arson ring often suggest banning fire rather than stopping arsonists from misusing it and the only way to get them to focus on the arsonists starts with reminding them that fire can be useful.
-
@resuna @yugthebug @jmax @thirstybear You probably use an ML system every time you spend money - every transaction is fraud scored at some point, some multiple times.
@TimWardCam
*Someone* (bank or payment processor) uses ML (edit: which are not LLMs) to check my transactions, not me and not (usually) the party I'm actively engaging with. What was your point?
@resuna @yugthebug @jmax @thirstybear -
@thirstybear I think they mean machine learning, not llms
@yugthebug @thirstybear No. There are no commercial services that use anything except LLMs. The techbros really belive it's a universal solution.
In the modern world, AI == LLM. -
@TimWardCam
*Someone* (bank or payment processor) uses ML (edit: which are not LLMs) to check my transactions, not me and not (usually) the party I'm actively engaging with. What was your point?
@resuna @yugthebug @jmax @thirstybear@ScriptFanix @resuna @yugthebug @jmax @thirstybear That not all "AI" is LLM and not all non-LLM "AI" is evil. Many people here get that, but there are plenty who don't.
-
@TimWardCam
*Someone* (bank or payment processor) uses ML (edit: which are not LLMs) to check my transactions, not me and not (usually) the party I'm actively engaging with. What was your point?
@resuna @yugthebug @jmax @thirstybear@ScriptFanix @TimWardCam @resuna @yugthebug @thirstybear If you use the term AI in modern language, you're talking about LLMs. Part of the scam is to pretend that they are synonyms, and they've won that fight.
You're helping with the con by continuing to refer to actual useful technologies as "AI".
Scalzi meant AI in the colloquial sense of LLMs. Stop playing "well actually" games that only benefit con artists.
