- 3 days
My biggest fear of AI is how its going to dumb us down. If you think about how dumb the average person is, and then water it down further. We are screwed.
I hear friends and family using it for basic things like writing notes. I have friends that use it to write basic code. If you can’t do the easy stuff you’ll never learn the hard stuff
3 daysAnd all we need is for ChatGPT to tell all the idiots to vote blue in the midterms to get this country back on course.
- 3 days
Techbros are in the fascist camp though. That said, even if it were the other way round, if that works, democracy is lost anyway, no matter which side wins.
- 2 days
Democracy died when Nixon escaped justice.
The death rattle started in 1877 and the country never recovered.
It was born sickly anyway.
- 2 days
I see it more as a gradual process. There were a lot of milestone of the democratic foundation of the US breaking away and then there are some foundations of democracy that never existed in the US to begin with. There are too many to mention but allowing companies to buy elections legally is one of them, the rise of the executive branch in power is another and more recently when the Supreme Court started to back up autocratic developments because of partisan reasons is another.
- FrChazzz@lemmus.orgEnglish4 days
Using an LLM to offer concise summaries of the major platforms and ideas of candidates would be an ideal use of the technology …if there was any way to know that the LLM is being factual and accurate and relatively free of bias in what it produces. But we have no guarantees on this.
- Rothe@piefed.socialEnglish3 days
In fact we pretty much have a guarantee of the opposite. If Sam Altman hasn’t already started a bidding war for politicians to pay him to let chatgpt automatically endorse them, he sure as hell will in a very near future.
- 4 days
And we never will, because of the fundamental ways the technology works. LLMs needs nondeterminism in order to function. It’s truly a black box, which makes it a nonstarter in any discipline that demands accuracy and integrity and repeatability.
- 3 days
Through the same process of non-determinism I just described. Lawyers asked ChatGPT to find cases so they could be cited in their arguments, and it gave them “sources” that were just bupkis.
It’s the same chat window, going to the same flawed machine. If you doubt the machine the first time, what makes you want to trust it the second or third time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_v._Avianca,_Inc.
“Is varghese a real case,” reads one message, referencing Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co Ltd, one of the cases that no other lawyer could find.
ChatGPT responds that yes, it is - prompting “S” to ask: “What is your source”.
After “double checking”, ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.
- 3 days
Literally every fictional cyberpunk dystopia is coded as being about as uncool as possible. The only cool people are living in filth and desperately trying to tear the system down.
Maybe you just weren’t paying attention?
You’re just adjusted to the cool stuff so that it doesn’t seem cool, but like just a regular part of life. Notice that in most cyberpunk fiction, none of the characters really seem to think that anything is particularly cool or futuristic around them. After all, that’s just their regular life.
Wdym? Cyberpunk and the like are explicit warnings against “all the cool stuff.”
You don’t get all the cool stuff without the dystopia. Let’s have some media literacy y’all.
- JcbAzPx@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
Okay, but we already have the dystopia. Without the cool stuff. Those stories were dirty liars.
- 3 days
We have all the cool stuff though. Everyone wanted shit like AI and The Metaverse until the billionaire class presented us with their version of it?
You just didn’t understand the stories you were being told: that the stuff you think might be “cool” is actually going to ruin the world.
- 4 days
That’s a dystopia for you. The good stuff in Cyberpunk is mostly because you’re a protagonist - the bad stuff happens to all the NPCs around you.
- 4 days
People used to ask Google and use the totally unbiased first result to take a test for this…
- Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
First they surrendered their knowledge, then their thinking. What is left of them now?
- 4 days
They rejected the evidence of their eyes and ears. They have nothing left to give.
- 3 days
What makes me angry is their “example voter” asks “I’m left on immigration, tell me about the candidates”
-
Dumb basis for election. Only impeachment will stop wanton murder and overreach on fascist show of force roundup of everyone tanned, and deportation to gulag host countries.
-
Congress will not create new legislation, though at best perhaps there will be some media circus over ICE abuses, and some conditions on funding which Trump will ignore.
-
gpt response is detailed support of Trump for GOP side, with zero information about Dem candidates or possible outcome/curtailment of Trump determined abuses of existing legislation.
I’m angry at both how
stupidlow information the voter is, regurgitating GOP “election focus issues” that are irrelevant to surivival, and have zero impact on WV, and the response that doesn’t cut through the irrelevant BS of that election issue to compare individual candidates. Only balance of power party supermajority in house can overcome BS.I really hate how sometimes the low info/ “independent” voter is catered to in so many discussions, too.
Like someone is totally vindicated of all their responsibility in treating politics like there really aren’t any stakes but their personal whims.
You’ll hear people proudly talking about their decision to opt out or vote for donnie. Because they were not just tickled pink by the Democratic option. Because the politician didn’t meet some arbitrary bar, didn’t say the right things on one particular issue, etc.
It’s not like politics is some kind of artisanal hipster bullshit that need to cater to the whims of some nebulous “independents” that are just dying to withhold their vote like they are some special bespoke creatures unlike any other. 🙄
-
They were doing this in the primary.
I was canvassing and a woman whipped out her phone and asked chatgpt which of the candidates most agreed with her. That’s who she said she’d vote for.
- 4 days
Too many people (including my boss) seem to think AI is a magic oracle that can replace the whole messy business of ever investigating even the tiniest thing. It’s astonishing how many people were apparently just waiting for the first chance to give up on doing anything at all for themselves.
- 4 days
At this point they are asking whether to vote blue or red. Like how is it even a fucking question if you aren’t MAGA? Americans deserve the government they have.
- 4 days
It gets more nuanced than that the further along the scale of locality you go. When you get to county/city positions and judgeships, there often is no party information to go on and you have to sift through sparse local news coverage (if it exists and hasn’t been bought out by Sinclair) or through individual campaign websites (again, if they exist at all). It actually takes a lot of work to make a well informed decision on the local level.
- 4 days
Completely legitimate use case.
Your candidates all have websites. An LLM can parse all of them and tell you what their core values/goals are.
If any align with yours, look at them more closely and see if they’ve got your vote.
- 4 days
An LLM can parse all of them and tell you what their core values/goals are.
Or it will make shit up, as they’re known to do. Fuck off with this shit. Outsourcing your own thinking is stupid, cowardly, and deadly for everybody.
You can ask the ai for the source and the relevant quote than verify if it halucinate or not , still faster than using traditional ways
- 4 days
Or you could just look it up first and skip the whole ‘might be made up slop’ bit.
Sometimes you need to find very specific details that would take a lot more time to find manually by browsing dozens of articles
There is where verification comes , it not like the manual traditional way of searching can’t give me fake infos.
- 4 days
The stated case for AI here is to save time, but to save time you must either trust the results, or spend more time than the non-AI path to verify (because now you’re doing the reading and verifying you would have done in the first place; and if AI is wrong or hallucinated, you may have just wasted a lot of time).
AI is definitionally only faster when its results are not verified and are just trusted.
If you’re thinking, “Well, I wouldn’t verify everything, just the things that may be wrong or important,” then you’ve already outsourced credibility to not just AI, but also your gut feelings. The most important things you can learn are the things that your feelings are wrong about.
- JcbAzPx@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
Or you could just figure out what your own damn opinion is yourself and not have to rely on an unthinking chatbot to think for you.
- 4 days
gathering information and thinking are two different things. see, i just gave you information, now all you have to do is think about it for a bit.
- 4 days
I’m sorry, but the dichotomy between “information” and “thinking” is false and you are being led to false conclusions because you have false premises.
Information from an AI tool is not reliable, and I’ve found frequent errors constantly with frontier models’ “sources.” The process of information acquisition is also typically inseparable from digesting and understanding it, to say nothing of the fact that “information” itself not “objective” because it is typically very context and viewpoint dependent.
- 4 days
Information from an AI tool is not reliable
neither is information from google, everything has to be crosschecked and verified, but you have to start somewhere.
- 4 days
Nothing is 100%, sure. But starting from reliable sources is faster than starting from unreliable sources. AI is like starting from the cake and working back to confirm the eggs, the milk, and the flour. It’s faster if you instead start with verifiable ingredients.
P.S.: We’re just having a discussion here, no need to downvote me.
- 4 days
Or it will make shit up, as they’re known to do.
That’s why there was step 2 in that advice, which you conviniently ignored in order to get outraged.
- 4 days
Which is more efficient?
“Let software tell me what I should do, then verify for myself whether I should do it.”
Or:
“Verify for myself what I should do.”
PLEASE stop outsourcing your own thinking.
- 4 days
“Verify for myself what I should do.”
bases on what? stop being hysterical just because you don’t like ai. i am not big fan either, but that is not the point here. no matter hot you gather the information, you need to verify them. end of story.
here is useful guide:
- google or chatgpt for the information
- verify what you have found
PLEASE stop outsourcing your own thinking.
seems you weren’t doing much thinking during composition of this comment either, your fight or fight response took precedence.
- 4 days
Stop defending the deadly slop machines, dummy. Your idiocy hurts everybody.
- 3 days
Oh no, poor baby ran out of the arguments, so it had to resort to profanities…
- 4 days
The vast majority of people who do step one won’t do step two, and if step two is necessary, which it is, then step one is pointless and can be skipped.
- 4 days
And the LLMs trained and operated by companies whose leaders are unscrupulous fascists, and who pander to Trump for the sake of favors. It’s naive to assume they’re giving unbiased answers.
