• inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
    49·
    25 days ago

    “Yeeaeh, can I get a #2 DIY truth combo with a side of platitudes and a large willful ignorance? And then could I get a child sized looming environmental impact too?”

    • ikt@aussie.zone
      2·
      25 days ago

      it’s comical? most ai’s have moved on beyond you are absolutely right

      claude especially

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        16·
        25 days ago

        They’ve moved beyond digitally sucking your dick. But they still reinforce your ideas with minimal challenge.

        • ikt@aussie.zone
          2·
          25 days ago

          are you talking about facebook or ai?

          which ai are you using, can you give an example?

          • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
            3·
            25 days ago

            Claude. Gemini. My local LLM which is various models.

            As a stupid example, I just asked Gemini how to outsource my lawn mowing to low-cost labor in India. While it did tell me that’s logistically impossible, it also said it’s a creative thought and it respects my dedication to cost efficiency.

            And that’s with a completely ridiculous example. If you try something more plausible but still a bad idea, they don’t just tell you it’s a bad idea.

            • NostraDavid@programming.dev
              1·
              24 days ago

              how to outsource my lawn mowing to low-cost labor in India

              You cannot meaningfully outsource physical lawn mowing in the Netherlands to low-cost labor in India, unless the worker is only doing coordination. Lawn mowing is location-bound.

              The workable versions are:

              1. Outsource the administration to India

                Hire an Indian virtual assistant to find local lawn-care providers, compare quotes, schedule visits, chase invoices, and monitor recurring service. The mowing itself is still done locally.

              2. Use a robot mower

                This is the closest real substitute for cheap recurring labor. You pay upfront for a robotic mower, then only outsource occasional maintenance, blade replacement, boundary-wire fixes, and winter storage.

              3. Hire local low-cost labor

                In the Netherlands, that usually means a student, neighborhood handyman, garden-service freelancer, or someone via a local platform. This is the practical low-cost route.

              4. Teleoperated mower

                In theory, someone in India could remotely drive a mower. In practice, this is not a normal consumer option. You would need a mower with cameras, low-latency control, safety cutoffs, insurance coverage, and probably someone local to place it outside, handle obstructions, and deal with failures. At that point it is usually more expensive than local mowing.

              So the sane setup is:

              Indian VA for procurement and scheduling + local mower/gardener for execution, or robot mower + local maintenance.

              GPT-5.5 Thinking, for context.

            • ikt@aussie.zone
              1·
              25 days ago

              instead of a silly and irrelevant example, maybe actually try and convince claude of something and tell me how you go?

              what’s the most controversial political opinion you have that most would disagree with and share the chat link :)

              expecting no reply because you’ll find claude has guardrails and the cartoon is once again largely based on chatgpt

              edit: it’s ok, found what I wanted: https://dystopiabench.com/ good to know the european version is the worst :(

              • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
                3·
                25 days ago

                I didn’t say I could convince them to agree to anything. I said they kiss ass even if you’re wrong. I guess my metaphor of fellatio wasn’t really straightforward enough.

                • ikt@aussie.zone
                  1·
                  25 days ago

                  oh i was referring to the cartoon which implies ai will straight lie to you about anything and never presents facts

                  this is comical and not true, you can easily push into guardrails even by mistake

    • Aniki@feddit.org
      2·
      24 days ago

      well, at first one would think that it is. then again, it’s historically normal that different groups of people worldwide have had their own culture, religion and beliefs and worldview. why would this today be worse than back then?

  • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
    4·
    25 days ago

    The ruiner’s a collector

    He’s an infector serving his shit to his flies

    Maybe there will come a day

    When those that you keep blind will suddenly realize

    Nine Inch Nails - Ruiner

  • Aniki@feddit.org
    3·
    24 days ago

    this has been going on for a while now and is not related to AI at all.

    it’s called post-structuralism and has been going on at least since the 2000 (at least in spirit, that’s when it gained traction among many scholars etc.). it says that there is no “objective reality” (in other words, only subjective realities exists, everybody sees the world differently and there are no absolute rules/morals).

    basically it says that you can just construct your own truth if you are powerful / wealthy enough to do that.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
    3·
    25 days ago

    except the healthy and truthful facts stand doesn’t and never did exist.

    If it did it would be simple to train a healthy and truthful facts AI, you would simply train it off from the truthful and healthy facts.

    but everyone makes up their own narrative until all written word appear relative to the AI, making it impossible for the ai to tell fact from fiction.

    When you read “slop” you are simply reading the words of someone who doesn’t live in in your constructed narrative.

    And now to prove it I will have plenty of down votes on this comment.

    • Naz@sh.itjust.works
      9·
      25 days ago

      Deconstructing the premise from first principles:

      except the healthy and truthful facts stand doesn’t and never did exist.

      • False: Bodies of recorded objective facts such as encyclopedia and scientific papers exist.

      If it did it would be simple to train a healthy and truthful facts AI, you would simply train it off from the truthful and healthy facts.

      • Logical fallacy: Assuming the antecedent, the first premise must be proved before a conclusion can be drawn.

      but everyone makes up their own narrative until all written word appear relative to the AI, making it impossible for the ai to tell fact from fiction.

      • Opinion. Artificial intelligence is designed to reproduce patterns. If you presume your prior premise was true, a “facts trained” AI should in theory have been able to distinguish truth from falsehood.

      When you read “slop” you are simply reading the words of someone who doesn’t live in in your constructed narrative.

      • Conflation: “Slop” is a pejorative term for all content generated by artificial intelligence, but particularly low quality, sloppy, one.

      And now to prove it I will have plenty of down votes on this comment.

      • Logical fallacy: Strawman. Constructing a poor argument in order to prove it is, itself false, at best, a waste of time.

      Overall truth value: 16.17% (Mostly misleading/inflammatory comment)
    • jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      25 days ago

      And now to prove it I will have plenty of down votes on this comment.

      I switched an upvote to a downvote after reading this last sentence, so it doesn’t really prove anything.

      • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
        1·
        25 days ago

        Except If I disagree with you it’s because I have a different constructed reality.

        so my every argument no matter how irrational proves my point, making your point irrational making my irrational point rational.

        “The titular “catch 22” is a bureaucratic paradox: a pilot can be grounded for being insane, but requesting to be grounded proves he’s sane - because only a sane person would want to avoid danger. Therefore he can never be grounded. Any escape route is blocked by the very rule you’d invoke to use it.”

        • jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          25 days ago

          Given that you seem to think this response is at all relevant to my comment, perhaps you have constructed a different reality.

          • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
            1·
            25 days ago

            It is relevant, you are making a statement that ai lies and as such has no value.

            Propaganda against AI wether for good evil or profit doesn’t matter definitionally it is propaganda.

            but this would imply we have an ultimate source of Truth glean from almost religious like a Bible as suggested by the healthful truth bar.

            but the problem is that all humans lie all websites are influenced by ads, all news is politically biased, making your entire post misleading and therefore it’s creating a false reality.

            Entirely relevant.

            • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
              4·
              25 days ago

              We get it, you took a philosophy class, or read Kant, or something else equally useless. You’re espousing that there is no such thing as an absolute truth as an absolute truth.

              Do you really not see how the entirety of that argument just boils down to you nihilistically staring into the abyss of your own asshole?

              • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
                1·
                25 days ago

                Incorrect on both accounts.

                My argument is around the general idea that humans are just as bad of a source of information as AI or worse, and the hallucination argument is not a valid argument it will not prevent anyone’s jobs from being replaced by ai and people who go to the slop machine are not making an inherently worse decision, it might make a mistake but so will you.

                Also I’ve never taken a philosophy class.

            • jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              21 days ago

              you are making a statement that ai lies and as such has no value.

              Am I?

              I thought I was making a statement about how I downvote everybody who says they will get downvoted, on principal.

    • Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      5·
      25 days ago

      When you read “slop” you are simply reading the words of someone who doesn’t live in in your constructed narrative.

      Tell me more?

      when someone reads slop, youre not reading human work. i dont contruct the narrative of who is born into exsistence, and who is not. I must not understand what you mean by these words.

      • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
        1·
        25 days ago

        You actually are reading heavily distorted and rearranged human work, when you read the code you are reading the aggregate of all code from all idiots and all coders combined but the average person who coded is an idiot so you get bad code.

        When you read the philosophy of an AI you get every genuine genius and every babbling idiot but the average person is not a well read philosopher his only philosophy is to survive the day.

        Every thought ever had is within AI both good and bad and it has no way of knowing what is better than the other, that is the “slop” it is simply the average man’s thought and tye average man is an idiot.

    • Hoimo@ani.social
      2·
      25 days ago

      If it did it would be simple to train a healthy and truthful facts AI, you would simply train it off from the truthful and healthy facts.

      Not how AI works. I mean, it’s technically possible to train an AI that only generates truth, but it would be so overfitted that it’s functionally no different from the search bar on Wikipedia.

      Large language models need randomness to function. They cut up every true sentence in the training data into tiny tokens and reassemble them into… well, whatever arrangement of tokens satisfies the discriminator or the humans who grade the output. Discriminators can’t tell fact from fiction and the humans generally don’t care to.

      Even if you valued truth above all else during the training and rejected every false statement you encounter, there’s no way you could judge the truth of every possible statement the system could ever produce. And with randomness most statements will be false, that’s simply the nature of truth.