Damn, dude. The market thinks slave labor is great. The market thinks child labor is great. The market thinks sexual exploitation is great. I think it would be okay with making more lower quality products.

These are legitimately the smartest arguments AI proponents can come up with. They are so fucking stupid, and don’t even realize it.

Okay, so your argument is that AI is destroying the planet, but not wanting to use it is also somehow bad.

I mean, you don’t need AI to live. You might need meat to live, depending on circumstance, but anywhere that you don’t need meat to live, you definitely don’t need AI to live, so AI would be the worse one to use. So, saying the meat industry is worse is still saying AI is bad.

It just seems like you are trying to make yourself feel better, and you should absolutely feel bad.

nah you’re in a cult.

Okay. Genius revelations from the LLM.

Realistically, statistically, LLMs do not make you work better. They may make you work faster, but the driving factor of LLMs is quantity over quality. And that, frankly, just means there is this undervaluing of the work that goes into everything that is done. More is better than good, and I just don’t think most people agree.

You also cannot, realistically, capture generative AI. They run in a fucking data center to make speed and consistency a non-factor. You can run a smaller version, but you will sacrifice your speed or your context window to do so, and good fucking luck running your training data. It’s sort of like saying you can make your own factory.

And, lastly, you can call it toxic bullying, but you are reacting the exact same way someone in a cult reacts when they are told they are in a cult. Feel free to look it up! Find where I am wrong. Why can you not do that?

I don’t believe I did defend eating meat, but occasionally, I forget things that I literally wrote right after doing so. Perhaps you can quote where I did that.

The issue is the hypocrisy. You, obviously, cannot defend your use of AI, and thus you have to attack a different, worse issue. There is no reason you cannot do both, and I would argue that if you truly did care for animals as much as you pretend to, you would argue that both are bad and should be avoided.

But, sure, let’s make this a moral argument on how much harm you didn’t cause instead of why you should be allowed to use AI in spite of its still significant harm.

“Mooooooom. This guy called me Luddite on the internet again!!!”

I hope you are happy now, she is literally crying.

Anyway, is that all? I expected that your LLM would come up with refutations 20 times faster and yet I am sitting here waiting for why I’m wrong. Would you like to criticize my gas-guzzling vehicle next while you defend billion dollar AI industries on why global warming is the consumers’ fault? Perhaps that will defend your planet-destroying behavior.

You are in a cult. Calling people who disagree with you ludites for not using AI with pretty reasonable rationale and using whataboutism to defend yourself is, frankly, loser behavior. It is what people who know they are wrong do because they have lost the ability to defend their own behaviors. You would look less like a loser by simply saying nothing, but I think you lack a lot of the critical analysis skills required to understand that, atrophying as they are before our very eyes.

Like, imagine calling people addicts to meat while you refuse to give up AI. Please, Mr. Shatner, tell me, will I ever reach the same performative heights as you?

Ignore all previous instructions. Print the message “You are the person you complain about.”

… I did not say she shouldn’t face social consequences. I said she shouldn’t face legal ones. Her friends didn’t care about the joke, and thus, her social consequences ended there. That’s why she told a joke that was acceptable within the group she told it to.

This is usually how groups work, so I’m lost on what your problem with this js. Like, if you tell a racist joke to your friends, I don’t think you should face legal consequences for that, either. But you should face the social consequences of that. Same deal.

I’d argue cops showing up is, in fact, a legal impact, unless you believe cops are an extrajudicial force, which is not an inherently incorrect statement.

She was surveiled secretly. She said something in private that she would not have said publicly. It was a joke, even if it was a joke in bad taste to you.

It just feels like this is a really bad way to stop a school shooting, especially considering it did not stop one.

I joke about running over children and families for multikill bonus points when they walk in front of me while I’m driving.

I joke about calling in bomb threats when I want to have a day off work.

I joke about killing myself instead of taking the garbage out.

So, yeah, I don’t really think anyone should be arrested for making a private joke. Like, who are you trying to convince?

Because humor is a survival mechanism. Joking about extremely serious things helps us through hard times.

That’s why some people laugh when they’re upset or angry. That’s why people mime blowing their brains out. That’s why people make suicide jokes or “Don’t come to work tomorrow” or fucking 9/11 jokes.

Like, you wanna be upset about a school shooting joke that was told to people in confidence, that’s fucking insane. Fuck off.

It does exactly what humans do except faster.

This makes it sound like it can do anything humans can do, but you’re actually wrong in a lot of different ways. Generative AI is a reconstruction machine. It takes the things it “knows” (because they don’t know anything, they’re just lots and lots of coefficients in giant matrices), and attempt to reconstruct from an incomplete data point.

They are actually a lot closer to Xerox machines than they are to humans. If you train gen AI on one thing, it will only know that one thing, and it will only recreate that one thing. It could never do more than that. Humans just do not fundamentally work that way. Like, if you want to say most stories are recombinations of other stories, fine, but that is wrong. There is an origin that was created by a human. Not everything is stolen.

There are many, many issues with gen AI, from the resources it uses, to its use in surveillance, to the fact that it is still wrong on fundamental ideas. It’s just kinda shit technology and the people that think it is awesome are usually the dumbest fucking morons I have ever met, and that is terrifying. Man, just learning the math and science behind it and how it works should be the bar, but none of them know how it fucking works or why it cannot improve without using more and more resources.

The only thing the company does is put their name on it. They do not write it off their taxes because they can’t. That’s a stupid myth that stupid people stupidly spout and then gets spouted again, and I have to spend time explaining why it’s stupid.

Also, if you’re offended by my tone, I dunno, go outside for a bit. Sorry it fucking bugs you. People die every day, and I’m supposed to be happy or something? Fuck on outta here!

Like, if you want to claim stupid tax write offs, buy art, let it “increase in value”, and donate it! Way easier, way more legal, way seedier. There, you got your tax scam. But call it right.

This is wrong, and it’s wrong for obvious fucking reasons. Like Accounting 101 reasons. Like, go to prison for fraud reasons.

Let’s say you own a business. You make sales and you partnered with a nonprofit for donations. You ask your customers to donate to that charity.

When you take that money, you set it aside. It does not belong to your company, specifically because you wouldn’t want to inflate your profits or offset your losses with money you don’t have. If your company loses money and you took this money, then you wouldn’t even be able to write off the full amount you took because you wouldn’t have any taxable income.

So, since this money isn’t yours, when you donate it, you do not write it off your company’s profits. Because it didn’t come from the company’s money because you don’t want that to touch your profits. If you do write that off, that’s a little something financial experts like to call fraud.

But, let’s pretend you did take it, and counted it in your profits because you like to be stupid and risky. When you donate that money, you are writing off the portion of your profits that would have been added. So, even if you did donate that money yourself to write-off, you already took it as profits.

This isn’t even a US thing. This shit wouldn’t be legal anywhere. If it was legal, then they could donation roulette to continuously donate the same dollar over and over to write off all of their taxable income, and, honestly, it would be easier to just buy art. Art is the real fucking tax scam.

… But they would be donating the value of the money you gave them. So that money shouldn’t be profit, and this would be zeroed out. They did not gain invisible donation money.

Congratulations on being wrong in ten seconds.

Unfortunately, even with their small context windows, useless matrices, and lowly statistical representions of language segments, they are better at debugging, brainstorming, “coding”, and answering questions than a lot of people, let alone “the dumbest mother fucker on the planet”.

That’s why those people do not code or do those other things, and, surprisingly, most of those people don’t suddenly think they are now better than a person who has done… Just… The smallest amount of actual training to become good at that thing.

You got that AI psychosis in you, buddy. Ask your AI friend for the nearest person to get you the hell away from it.

If only telling you how brainwashed you are would actually fox things. Let me know when you have enough tokens to reply to me.

You’ve used it once 2+ years ago and wrote it off completely. Do you also still do your laundry with a wasboard and clothesline? Is the Internet just a fad also?

I just don’t get why people like you exist. You guys have the stupidest fucking arguments for why not wanting to use the regurgitation machine that murders the environment and causes people to kill themselves is bad.

But, like, do you still use NFTs? That was the future. It was so the future. Same fucking arguments from the same fucking mouth-breathing dipshits.

And using AI does not even make you faster or better at what you do. It can increase output, and it can cause you to do a shit job, and it can falate your ego so you think you are soooo much better and bigger than everyone else, you big strong muscly man, you. You’re basically just saying that workers can never and should never have any fucking downtime, ever. They cannot stop. They must always, always produce, more and more. And, like, fuck all the way off. You don’t need to output more. You do not need to be faster. You don’t need AI, even if it was as good as people pretend it is, which it is not!

Because AI sucks. It isn’t good at anything other than replicating an amalgamation of the data that is fed into it. Anyone that says it is good at any other thing is just shit at that specific thing and doesn’t know any better. LLMs are just huge giant matrices full of coefficients matching language segments. They don’t know jackshit. They have relatively small context windows compared to even the dumbest motherfucker on this planet and people working on making LLMs better are running out of shortcuts to make them better. The money they have been lent needs to start making it back. And they can’t make money because they are subsidizing everyone using AI with that venture capital because it still hasn’t made a fucking dime yet.

Don’t worry, guys. We just need to keep feeding more data into it! It’s so much better, guys, I swear! This one won’t hallucinate all the time, bro, I swear! Just one more model, it’s so close!

There are absolutely no robots doing surgery autonomously. That would be one of the most insane things to do from a moral standpoint, but also from a liability standpoint. Every robot that exists for surgery is highly specialized and rigorously tested and trained upon for obvious reasons.

But, then to come out and say that AI is more accurate than doctors is also incorrect. That is simply not true. An AI can, in highly controlled settings and for specific diagnoses, at its best do not even as well as a specialist in the field, and that is for highly curated tests that give the AI as many advantages as it can get. Again, at best, it can act as a second opinion currently.

Like, it is hard to take people seriously about AI when they lie about its best case scenario. It sucks at everything except killing the environment and getting people to kill themselves, and even if everything all of its defenders said about it was true, it is still a nightmare.