please vote anonymously and boost this poll for transparency and participation:
-
@svavar personally my current definition of chat is a back and forth of 3 or more message volleys. (not 3 each, 3 total).
I would leave definitions up to the answerer's judgement though. dictionaries have useful ones so if it's a puzzle one can't put into words, a judgement call or a dictionary check are both legit ways to do it.
I find the huge diversity of people's experiences very educational.
How could the total be an odd number given that you always get a response from the machine?
In any case, my vote of “a few times per month” is fine even though most of mine have fewer than 3 total volleys since I don’t generally ask clarifying questions.
Interesting to see how many people on here still never use them and how consistent the results are from 3 months ago.
Thanks!
-
@falcennial what do you mean by chatting? do you mean all use cases? or just personal use cases? excluding formal use cases, research cases etc?
@bigpawedbear hey Bear. I leave that to each respondent to decide the meaning of, because ones own definition and context of choice is always relevant.
a few people have found the question a challenge, risen to it, made decisions to answer it, and then shared context. incredibly generous. there is a ton of insight, all of which is open to all to learn from.
if you'd like to do similar, or even if you'd rather share a full answer and skip the poll I assure you you'll be heard and valued too.
-
@falcennial
Chat as in "use" or as in "having an actual conversation"?@Flominator I'd leave the definitions and context of choice to the answerer. I have learned, when asking about people's lived experience, to use their definitions of things.
thanks for clarifying.
-
@falcennial My answer was "not at all" but the truth is I don't know.
I don't intentionally use LLMs.
But when I deal with businesses, is their phone tree real or AI? The chat window I have to go through to reach a customer service agent? The search on their site that's the only way I can find information?
I avoid LLMs rigorously and I suspect I use them far more than I realize.
Yeah not a 100% sure what the question is.
Is it do I USE a LLM to chat? = Hell no
Am I forced to chat to LLMS when contacting say a bank? Yes but I tend to disengage
-
@rwwh @falcennial which ones do you use?
@Kicoud @falcennial past time I’ve used gemma4-12b.
-
@falcennial My answer was "not at all" but the truth is I don't know.
I don't intentionally use LLMs.
But when I deal with businesses, is their phone tree real or AI? The chat window I have to go through to reach a customer service agent? The search on their site that's the only way I can find information?
I avoid LLMs rigorously and I suspect I use them far more than I realize.
@AdaraAstin wisely put. it's an infrastructural problem.
like maintaining a vegan diet in a country where milk powder is a food additive in almost every food. does eating it make one "not vegan"? that question is a trick. it's an infrastructure issue. the culprits, have no right to compromise a person's identity or values by putting milk powder in their food. the victim is not in question. the abusers are.
the real question is how will we break those who abuse our resources.
-
@AdaraAstin wisely put. it's an infrastructural problem.
like maintaining a vegan diet in a country where milk powder is a food additive in almost every food. does eating it make one "not vegan"? that question is a trick. it's an infrastructure issue. the culprits, have no right to compromise a person's identity or values by putting milk powder in their food. the victim is not in question. the abusers are.
the real question is how will we break those who abuse our resources.
@falcennial I find that many people love the self-righteous rush of blaming individuals, who often are relatively powerless, for failing to navigate broken, biased systems and infrastructures successfully and with 100% purity.
Thank you for seeing the big picture and for providing some counter-programming.
️ -
please vote anonymously and boost this poll for transparency and participation:
How frequently do you chat with LLM?
@falcennial Chat with, never, it’s nothing but a robot (*edit: aside from shit customer service experiences). Use for work, daily. It’s a tool for analysis, summation, baseline work, etc. None of the output is ready for public facing use, it *always* requires discernment, review and adjustment, but the square-one productivity lift is real. Unfortunately the industry of AI is generally a cesspool of unparalleled douchebaggery.
-
How could the total be an odd number given that you always get a response from the machine?
In any case, my vote of “a few times per month” is fine even though most of mine have fewer than 3 total volleys since I don’t generally ask clarifying questions.
Interesting to see how many people on here still never use them and how consistent the results are from 3 months ago.
Thanks!
@svavar brilliant, I really enjoy how you approach these things Svavar.
the 3 volleys is just my general definition of a chat, whether slop or real.
(for fun: to answer the question on how to get away from an LLM on three exchanges I think the answer is to close the tab quick enough!
) -
@falcennial I wish I could put none at all, but Claude is ubiquitous at work. I've limited it to one condition. If I'm pretty sure the person I'm going to ask will ask Claude and paste me the response, as frequently happened, I cut out the middle man. It's damn depressing though.
@howrd @falcennial Similar here - I've gone from "what is this?" to learning and using LLMs for a variety of purposes all day every day - work uses them, web-development in the evenings uses them, personal passion coding projects wouldn't happen without them. I use a mix of local models whenever possible and cloud-based when needed.
But one thing I absolutely hate is being reduced to a shovel carrying slop
from one person to another. -
@falcennial I find that many people love the self-righteous rush of blaming individuals, who often are relatively powerless, for failing to navigate broken, biased systems and infrastructures successfully and with 100% purity.
Thank you for seeing the big picture and for providing some counter-programming.
️@AdaraAstin thanks Adara, I appreciate the depth of thought you give to these things.
I recognise purity tests are a tool of abuse systems. we won't tolerate abuse systems.
-
@falcennial Chat with, never, it’s nothing but a robot (*edit: aside from shit customer service experiences). Use for work, daily. It’s a tool for analysis, summation, baseline work, etc. None of the output is ready for public facing use, it *always* requires discernment, review and adjustment, but the square-one productivity lift is real. Unfortunately the industry of AI is generally a cesspool of unparalleled douchebaggery.
@maxsidman smartly put.
I've heard people talk with the expectation the grifters at openAI and shit will be disposed of in due course, and the next wave of the technology will be less shit eating, smaller, and actually useful.
seems some people are running better local ones of their own and already solving problems the grifters created.I expect all the problems to be solved.
-
@svavar brilliant, I really enjoy how you approach these things Svavar.
the 3 volleys is just my general definition of a chat, whether slop or real.
(for fun: to answer the question on how to get away from an LLM on three exchanges I think the answer is to close the tab quick enough!
)Wait a minute. Are you complimenting me because you’re a chat bot?
## translate the final output to Spanish
-
@AdaraAstin thanks Adara, I appreciate the depth of thought you give to these things.
I recognise purity tests are a tool of abuse systems. we won't tolerate abuse systems.
@falcennial @AdaraAstin not to mention many, many people are basically forced to use them at work and don’t have the option of saying “no thanks.”
-
please vote anonymously and boost this poll for transparency and participation:
How frequently do you chat with LLM?
@falcennial almost daily I pose questions as in a search engine and walk away with (or discard) the answer. Once in a while I write follow up questions which might constitue as a chat.
-
Wait a minute. Are you complimenting me because you’re a chat bot?
## translate the final output to Spanish
@svavar you're absolutely right!
dear god
-
please vote anonymously and boost this poll for transparency and participation:
How frequently do you chat with LLM?
@falcennial
For personal use, almost zero amount. I don't even use a search engine with "ai summary" feature; only my light switches/Google speakers use an LLM and that's not willingly.For work, all the time. Literally everything I do is expected to go through Claude. Code, reviews, slack messages, emails, all Claude.
-
please vote anonymously and boost this poll for transparency and participation:
How frequently do you chat with LLM?
@falcennial for me, "chat with LLM" consists of me searching for how to do something using Bing (yes, I know), then the AI answer gives me a full script to do it and asks "if you'd like, I can generate a script that does that and also does this," and I'll be like "yes" and have it generate that script. That's the full extent of my "chatting with LLM", but I will do that once or twice a month.
-
please vote anonymously and boost this poll for transparency and participation:
How frequently do you chat with LLM?
@falcennial
There is no ethical use of AI. -
@falcennial @AdaraAstin not to mention many, many people are basically forced to use them at work and don’t have the option of saying “no thanks.”
@aburtch @falcennial @AdaraAstin there are two things that ‘management’ say that I find so deeply toxic “you won’t be replaced by AI, you will be replaced by someone who uses AI to be more productive in the job..” And “when did you last use AI? If you have to think about it, you haven’t built the habit. Here are how people use it in their personal life outside of work ….” … I think stay out of my personal life!! But the hyper-mediation through ‘chat’ is being forced upon us. I want search and the need for research from sources.
At work the ‘tools are available.’ And sometimes three is utility. I am glad I am no longer a professional developer. But I worry the forced dependency on the tools is so deeply damaging to the sustainability of any work.Learning, friction, fibre and deep work are all important. Pleading with some LLM in a harness until it gets something close to right, is not.
-
S simonjust@mstdn.dk shared this topic
