this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
1066 points (97.7% liked)

People Twitter

5380 readers
428 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Then why are we talking about someone getting it to spew inaccuracies in order to prove a point, rather than the decision of marketing execs to proliferate its use for a million pointless implementations nobody wants at the expense of far higher energy usage?

Most people already know and understand that it's bad at most of what execs are trying to push it as, it's not a public-perception issue. We should be talking about how energy-expensive it is, and curbing its use on tasks where it isn't anything more than an annoying gimmick. At this point, it's not that people don't understand its limitations, it's that they don't understand how much energy it's costing and how it's being shoved into everything we use without our noticing.

Somebody hopping onto openAI or Gemini to get help with a specific topic or task isn't the problem. Why are we trading personal anecdotes about sporadic personal usage when the problem is systemic, not individualized?

people who actually understand how computers work

Bit idea for moderators: there should be a site or community-wide auto-mod rule that replaces this phrase with 'eat all their vegitables' or something that is equally un-serious and infantilizing as 'understand how computers work'.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You original comment is posted under mine.

I am going to assume you are responding to that.

... I wasn't trying to trick it.

I was trying to use it.

This is relevant to my more recent reply to you... because it is an anecdotal example of how broadly useless this technology is.

...

I wasn't aware the purpose of this joke meme thread was to act as a policy workshop to determine an actionable media campaign aimed at generating mass awareness of the economic downsides of LLMs, which wouldn't fucking work anyway because LLMs are being pushed by a class of wealthy people who do not fucking care what the masses think, and have essentially zero reason at all to change their course of action.

What, we're going to boycott the entire tech industry?

Vote them out of office?

These people are on video, on record saying basically, 'eh, we're not gonna save the climate, not happening, might as well burn it all down even harder, even faster, for a tiny percentage chance our overcomplicated autocomplete algorithm magically figures out how to fix everything afterward'.

...

And yes, I very intentionally used the phrase 'understand how computers actually work' to infantilize and demean corporate executives.

Because they are narcissistic priveleged sociopaths who are almost never qualified, almost always make idiotic decisions that will only benefit themselves and an increasingly shrinking number of people at the expense of the vast majority of people who know more and work harder than they do, and who often respond like children having temper tantrums when they are justly criticized.

Again, in the context of a joke meme thread.

Please get off your high horse, or at least ride it over to a trough of water if you want a reasonable place to try to convince it to drink in the manner in which you prefer.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

… I wasn’t trying to trick it.

I was trying to use it.

Err, I'd describe your anecdote more as an attempt to reason with it...? If you were using google to search for an answer to something and it came up with the wrong thing, you wouldn't then complain back to it about it being wrong, you'd just try again with different terms or move on to something else. If 'using' it for you is scolding it as if it's an incompetent coworker, then maybe the problem isn't the tool but how you're trying to use it.

I wasn’t aware the purpose of this joke meme thread was to act as a policy workshop to determine an actionable media campaign

Lmao, it certainly isn't. Then again, had you been responding with any discernible humor of your own I might not have had reason to take your comment seriously.

And yes, I very intentionally used the phrase ‘understand how computers actually work’ to infantilize and demean corporate executives.

Except your original comment wasn't directed at corporate executives, it appears to be more of a personal review of the tool itself. Unless your boss was the one asking you to use Gemini? Either way, that phrase is used so much more often as self-aggrandizement and condescension that it's hard to see it as anything else, especially when it follows an anecdote of that person trying to reason with a piece of software lmao.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It is not that it responded "Sorry, I cannot find anything like what you described, here are some things that are pretty close."

It affirmatively said "No, no such things as you describe exist, here are some things that are pretty close."

There's a huge difference between a coworker saying "Dang man, I dunno, I can't find a thing like that." and "No, nothing like that exists, closest to it is x y z,"

The former is honest. The latter is confidently incorrect.

Combine that with "Wait what about gamma?"

And the former is still honest, and the latter, who now describes gamma in great detail and how it meets my requirements, is now an obvious liar, after telling me that nothing like that exists.

If I now know I am dealing with a dishonest interlocutor, now I am forced to consider tricking it into being homest.

Or, if I am less informed or more naive, I might just, you know, believe it the first time.

A standard search engine that is not formatted to resemble talking to a person does not prompt a user to expect it to act like a person, and thus does not suffer from this problem.

If you don't find what you're looking for, all that means is you did not find it.

If you are told that no such thing exists, a lot of people are going to believe that no such thing exists.

That is typically called spreading disinformation, when the actor knows what they are claiming is false.

Its worse than unhelpful, it actively spreads lies.

...

Anyway, I'm sorry that you don't see humor in multi billion dollar technology failing at achieving its purported abilities, I laugh all the time at poorly designed products, systems, things.

...

Finally, I did not use the phrase in contention in my original post.

I used it in my response to you, specifically and only within a single sentence which revolved around incompetent executives.

...

It appears that reading comprehension is not your strong suit, maybe you can ask Gemini about how to improve it.

Err, well, maybe don't do that.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

reading comprehension

Lmao, there should also be an automod rule for this phrase, too.

There’s a huge difference between a coworker saying [...]

Lol, you're still talking about it like it's a person that can be reasoned with bud. It's just a piece of software. If it doesn't give you the response you want you can try using a different prompt, just like if google doesn't find what you're looking for you can change your search terms.

If people are gullible enough to take its responses as given (or scold it for not being capable of rational thought lmao) then that's their problem - just like how people can take the first search result from google without scrutiny if they want to, too. There's nothing especially problematic about the existence of an AI chatbot that hasn't been addressed with the advent of every other information technology.