Tech journalists don’t know a damn thing. They’re people that liked computers and could also bullshit an essay in college. That doesn’t make them an expert on anything.
that is such a ridiculous idea. Just because you see hate for it in the media doesn’t mean it originated there. I’ll have you know that i have embarrassed myself by screaming at robot phone receptionists for years now. stupid fuckers pretending to be people but not knowing shit. I was born ready to hate LLMs and I’m not gonna have you claim that CNN made me do it.
Search AI in Lemmy and check out every article on it. It definitely is media spreading all the hate. And like this article is often some money yellow journalism
It’s not that bad, the output isn’t random.
Time to time, it can produce novel stuffs like new equations for engineering.
Also, verification does not take that much effort. At least according to my colleagues, it is great.
Also works well for coding well-known stuffs, as well!
😆 I can’t believe how absolutely silly a lot of you sound with this.
LLM is a tool. It’s output is dependent on the input. If that’s the quality of answer you’re getting, then it’s a user error. I guarantee you that LLM answers for many problems are definitely adequate.
It’s like if a carpenter said the cabinets turned out shit because his hammer only produces crap.
Also another person commented that seen the pattern you also see means we’re psychotic.
All I’m trying to suggest is Lemmy is getting seriously manipulated by the media attitude towards LLMs and these comments I feel really highlight that.
Why are you giving it data. It’s a chat and language tool. It’s not data based. You need something trained to work for that specific use. I think Wolfram Alpha has better tools for that.
I wouldn’t trust it to calculate how many patio stones I need to build a project. But I trust it to tell me where a good source is on a topic or if a quote was said by who ever or if I need to remember something but I only have vague pieces like old timey historical witch burning related factoid about villagers who pulled people through a hole in the church wall or what was a the princess who was skeptic and sent her scientist to villages to try to calm superstitious panic .
Other uses are like digging around my computer and seeing what processes do what. How concepts work regarding the think I’m currently learning. So many excellent users. But I fucking wouldn’t trust it to do any kind of calculation.
all that proves is that lemmy users post those articles. you’re skirting around psychotic territory here, seeing patterns where there are none, reading between the lines to find the cover-up that you are already certain is there, with nothing to convince you otherwise.
if you want to be objective and rigorous about it, you’d have to start with looking at all media publications and comparing their relative bias.
then you’d have to consider their reasons for bias, because it could just be that things actually suck. (in other words, if only 90% of media reports that something sucks when 99% of humanity agrees it sucks, maybe that 90% is actually too low, not too high)
this is all way more complicated than media brainwashing.
Tech journalists don’t know a damn thing. They’re people that liked computers and could also bullshit an essay in college. That doesn’t make them an expert on anything.
… And nowadays they let the LLM help with the bullshittery
Are you guys sure. The media seems to be where a lot of LLM hate originates.
that is such a ridiculous idea. Just because you see hate for it in the media doesn’t mean it originated there. I’ll have you know that i have embarrassed myself by screaming at robot phone receptionists for years now. stupid fuckers pretending to be people but not knowing shit. I was born ready to hate LLMs and I’m not gonna have you claim that CNN made me do it.
Search AI in Lemmy and check out every article on it. It definitely is media spreading all the hate. And like this article is often some money yellow journalism
deleted by creator
Wdym, I have seen researchers using it to aid their research significantly. You just need to verify some stuff it says.
deleted by creator
It’s not that bad, the output isn’t random. Time to time, it can produce novel stuffs like new equations for engineering. Also, verification does not take that much effort. At least according to my colleagues, it is great. Also works well for coding well-known stuffs, as well!
😆 I can’t believe how absolutely silly a lot of you sound with this.
LLM is a tool. It’s output is dependent on the input. If that’s the quality of answer you’re getting, then it’s a user error. I guarantee you that LLM answers for many problems are definitely adequate.
It’s like if a carpenter said the cabinets turned out shit because his hammer only produces crap.
Also another person commented that seen the pattern you also see means we’re psychotic.
All I’m trying to suggest is Lemmy is getting seriously manipulated by the media attitude towards LLMs and these comments I feel really highlight that.
deleted by creator
Why are you giving it data. It’s a chat and language tool. It’s not data based. You need something trained to work for that specific use. I think Wolfram Alpha has better tools for that.
I wouldn’t trust it to calculate how many patio stones I need to build a project. But I trust it to tell me where a good source is on a topic or if a quote was said by who ever or if I need to remember something but I only have vague pieces like old timey historical witch burning related factoid about villagers who pulled people through a hole in the church wall or what was a the princess who was skeptic and sent her scientist to villages to try to calm superstitious panic .
Other uses are like digging around my computer and seeing what processes do what. How concepts work regarding the think I’m currently learning. So many excellent users. But I fucking wouldn’t trust it to do any kind of calculation.
all that proves is that lemmy users post those articles. you’re skirting around psychotic territory here, seeing patterns where there are none, reading between the lines to find the cover-up that you are already certain is there, with nothing to convince you otherwise.
if you want to be objective and rigorous about it, you’d have to start with looking at all media publications and comparing their relative bias.
then you’d have to consider their reasons for bias, because it could just be that things actually suck. (in other words, if only 90% of media reports that something sucks when 99% of humanity agrees it sucks, maybe that 90% is actually too low, not too high)
this is all way more complicated than media brainwashing.
Whatever gets ad views