mathw

I have seldom been so shocked by a comment as by having my very existence made the moral equivalent of a state-sanctioned murder.

The purpose of the death penalty itself is vengeance. It does nothing to prevent crime, it just promotes a culture of violence. How can a government condemn murder when engaging in it themselves?

Livestreamed or not, this is immoral and Australia are quite right to try to block it. All countries should be seeking to do the same.

1) it absolutely isn't "uncensored"

2) absolute freedom to post whatever you like and have it shoved in people's faces by the algorithm is harmful

3) usually when people are "hungry for the raw, real truth" they're actually chasing a bunch of conspiracy theories

That is exactly what it means.

Are you living with your head under a rock. AI has absolutely made my life worse, and is set to do so further. I know very few people who are seriously enthusiastic about it.

"All evidence suggests more AI is better" is ignoring an awful lot of the evidence, and the doom is already happening all around you and you just can't see it.

It took me far too long to realise that writing on paper is better than typing.

No we won't.

Everything looks brown, it's crammed together, those not-photos make it feel really cramped in the third column, it looks like every other AI-generated menu and it's lost the clarity the old menu had.

And yes, there's a very long history of food places using unrealistic images of someone else's version of the food on the menus. That doesn't mean that it's okay to now use LLM versions of the food, because I never thought it was okay to use those stylised photos either.

Also why do they have sea life in it at all, surely that's not something that's meant to be in the pool.

Yes, because LLMs make stuff up all the time. Still. Anybody who's using an LLM for search isn't serious about the answers.

You could just not use LLMs and retain your brain function.

If you can't review the code faster than you could write it yourself, write it yourself.

The only way to even start to counter that is to make it a firm company policy that if you use an LLM to hallucinate any documents you absolutely must thoroughly review them yourself before you send them to anybody else, and that you are still responsible for the quality of LLM-generated content.

Getting an LLM to vomit out a bunch of documents and sending them straight to another colleague is absolutely unacceptable behaviour.

Not much ROI, if any. My employer's been making some studies and come up with very modest productivity gains - so of course they want us all to use it, but I'm not sure they're taking the true costs into account. Especially not once token pricing actually reflects reality, and we all get brain rot from using the things instead of thinking. If this thing doesn't collapse before we can run a solid coding assistant model on a developer's machine, maybe it's got some legs.

That doesn't seem very likely.

The legacy of LLMs will live on in various models doing various specialist things (they seem like a really good progression on speech synthesis for example) but the current edifice will come crashing down and if we're very very very lucky they won't take the global economy with it.