Is It Just Me?
-
Because the alternative for me is googling the question with "reddit" added at the end half of the time. I still do that alot. For more complicated or serious problems/questions, I've set it to only use search function and navigate scientific sites like ncbi and pubmed while utilizing deep think. It then gives me the sources, I randomly tend to cross-check the relevant information, but so far I personally haven't noticed any errors. You gotta realize how much time this saves.
When it comes to data privacy, I honestly don't see the potential dangers in the data I submit to OpenAI, but this is of course different to everyone else. I don't submit any personal info or talk about my life. It's a tool.
If it saves time but you still have to double check its answers, does it really save time? At least many reddit comments call out their own uncertainty or link to better resources, I can't trust a single thing AI outputs so I just ignore it as much as possible.
-
Everytime someone talks up AI, I point out that you need to be a subject matter expert in the topic to trust it because it frequently produces really, really convincing summaries that are complete and utter bullshit.
And people agree with me implicitly and tell me they've seen the same. But then don't hesitate to turn to AI on subjects they aren't experts in for "quick answers". These are not stupid people either. I just don't understand.
Uses for this current wave of AI: converting machine language to human language. Converting human language to machine language. Sentiment analysis. Summarizing text.
People have way over invested in one of the least functional parts of what it can do because it's the part that looks the most "magic" if you don't know what it's doing.
The most helpful and least used way of using them is to identify what information the user is looking for and then to point them to resources they can use to find out for themselves, maybe with a description of which resource might be best depending on what part of the question they're answering.
It's easy to be wrong when you're answering a question, and a lot harder when you hand someone a book and say you think the answer is in chapter four. -
My pet peeve: "here's what ChatGPT said..."
No.
Stop.
If I'd wanted to know what the Large Lying Machine said, I would've asked it.
Hammer time.
-
So your comment isn't about AI at all, but rather the "bubble" mentality of online discussion spaces?
Exactly. There's some value to AI,but ai would say it's 85% hype and inflated bullshit. People though spend a ton of calories complaining about AI and how inescapable it is, while I find it more difficult to escape people complaining about AI than AI itself.
Yes it hallucinates, yes it makes you dumber, yes it's actually a blanket term that people really say when they mean LLMs, yes some people do get some utility from it. But mostly, jesus, your opinion has been expressed on the Internet already, STFU.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I have a love/ hate relationship. Sometimes I'm absolutely blown away by what it can do. But then I asked a compounded interest question. The first answer was AI, so I figured ok, why not. I should mention I don't know much about it. The answer was impressive. It gave the result, a brief explanation about how it came to the result and presented me with the equation it used. Since I needed it for all time sake, I entered the equation into a spreadsheet and got what I thought was the wrong answer. I spent quite a few minutes trying to figure out what I was doing wrong and found a couple of things. But fixing them still didn't give me the correct result. After I had convinced myself I had done it correctly I looked up the equation. It was the right one. Then I put it into a non-AI calculator online to check my work. Sure enough, the AI had given me the wrong result with the right equation. So be rule, never accept the AI answer with verifying it. But you know what, if you have to verify it, what's the point of using it in the first place? You just have to do the same work as you would without it.
-
If plastic was released roughly two years ago you'd have a point.
If you're saying in 50 years we'll all be soaking in this bullshit called gen-AI and thinking it's normal, well - maybe, but that's going to be some bleak-ass shit.
Also you've got plastic in your gonads.
On the bright side we have Cyberpunk to give us a tutorial on how to survive the AI dystopia. Have you started picking your implants yet?
-
I have a love/ hate relationship. Sometimes I'm absolutely blown away by what it can do. But then I asked a compounded interest question. The first answer was AI, so I figured ok, why not. I should mention I don't know much about it. The answer was impressive. It gave the result, a brief explanation about how it came to the result and presented me with the equation it used. Since I needed it for all time sake, I entered the equation into a spreadsheet and got what I thought was the wrong answer. I spent quite a few minutes trying to figure out what I was doing wrong and found a couple of things. But fixing them still didn't give me the correct result. After I had convinced myself I had done it correctly I looked up the equation. It was the right one. Then I put it into a non-AI calculator online to check my work. Sure enough, the AI had given me the wrong result with the right equation. So be rule, never accept the AI answer with verifying it. But you know what, if you have to verify it, what's the point of using it in the first place? You just have to do the same work as you would without it.
So be rule, never accept the AI answer with verifying it. But you know what, if you have to verify it, what's the point of using it in the first place? You just have to do the same work as you would without it.
Exactly
-
Got them —s, tho
Should be ellipses.
-
I have a love/ hate relationship. Sometimes I'm absolutely blown away by what it can do. But then I asked a compounded interest question. The first answer was AI, so I figured ok, why not. I should mention I don't know much about it. The answer was impressive. It gave the result, a brief explanation about how it came to the result and presented me with the equation it used. Since I needed it for all time sake, I entered the equation into a spreadsheet and got what I thought was the wrong answer. I spent quite a few minutes trying to figure out what I was doing wrong and found a couple of things. But fixing them still didn't give me the correct result. After I had convinced myself I had done it correctly I looked up the equation. It was the right one. Then I put it into a non-AI calculator online to check my work. Sure enough, the AI had given me the wrong result with the right equation. So be rule, never accept the AI answer with verifying it. But you know what, if you have to verify it, what's the point of using it in the first place? You just have to do the same work as you would without it.
So be rule, never accept the AI answer with verifying it. But you know what, if you have to verify it, what’s the point of using it in the first place?
pfft that ecosystem isn't going to fuck itself, now, is it?
-
This post did not contain any content.
The Luddites were right. Maybe we can learn a thing or two from them...
-
The Luddites were right. Maybe we can learn a thing or two from them...
The data centers should not be safe for much longer. Especially once they use up the water of their small towns nearby
-
It literally has no other way to judge
It literally does NOT judge. It cannot reason. It does not know what "words" are. It is an enormous rainbow table of sentence probability that does nothing useful except fool people and provide cover for capitalists to extract more profit.
But apparently, according to some on here, "that's the way it is, get used to it." FUCK no.
Markov text generator. Thats all it is. Just made with billions in stolen wages.
-
A lot of people also mix generative AI with predictive. Like they will mention the hurricane predictor or cancer cell finder AI as a "good use case for chatgpt."
Hard to blame the people, when the media have been calling everything AI these days
-
You are not correct about the energy use of prompts. They are not very energy intensive at all. Training the AI, however, is breaking the power grid.
I'm pretty sure it's a product of scale, but also, GPT5 is markedly worse. I heard estimates of 40 watt hours for a single medium length response. Napkin math says my motorcycle can travel
about kilometer per single medium length response of GPT5. Now multiply that by how many people are using AI (anyone going online these days), now multiply that by how many times a day each user causes a prompt. Now multiply that by 365 and we have how much power they're using in a year. -
uhm no I'm pretty sure op wouldn't approve judging by the:
"but you can-" I'm gonna lose it
I did not claim that the OP was saying it's sometimes useful.
-
Markov text generator. Thats all it is. Just made with billions in stolen wages.
"Information wants to be free..."
No! Not like that!!
-
This post did not contain any content.
No, it's not just you or unsat-and-strange. You're pro-human.
Trying something new when it first comes out or when you first get access to it is novelty. What we've moved to now is mass adoption. And that's a problem.
These LLMs are automation of mass theft with a good enough regurgitation of the stolen data. This is unethical for the vast majority of business applications. And good enough is insufficient in most cases, like software.
I had a lot of fun playing around with AI when it first came out. And people figured out how to do prompts I cant seem to replicate. I don't begrudge people from trying a new thing.
But if we aren't going to regulate AI or teach people how to avoid AI induced psychosis then even in applications were it could be useful it's a danger to anyone who uses it. Not to mention how wasteful its water and energy usage is.
-
People are overworked, underpaid, and struggling to make rent in this economy while juggling 3 jobs or taking care of their kids, or both.
They are at the limits of their mental load, especially women who shoulder it disproportionately in many households. AI is used to drastically reduce that mental load. People suffering from burnout use it for unlicensed therapy. I'm not advocating for it, I'm pointing out why people use it.
Treating AI users like a moral failure and disregarding their circumstances does nothing to discourage the use of AI. All you are doing is enforcing their alienation of anti-AI sentiment.
First, understand the person behind it. Address the root cause, which is that AI companies are exploiting the vulnerabilities of people with or close to burnout by selling the dream of a lightened workload.
It's like eating factory farmed meat. If you have eaten it recently, you know what horrors go into making it. Yet, you are exhausted from a long day of work and you just need a bite of that chicken to take the edge off to remain sane after all these years. There is a system at work here, greater than just you and the chicken. It's the industry as a whole exploiting consumer habits. AI users are no different.
Let's go a step further and look at why people are in burnout, are overloaded, are working 3 jobs to make ends meet.
Its because we're all slaves to capitalism.
Greed for more profit by any means possible has driven society to the point where we can barely afford to survive and corporations still want more. When most Americans are choosing between eating, their kids eating, or paying rent, while enduring the workload of two to three people, yeah they'll turn to anything that makes life easier. But it shouldn't be this way and until we're no longer slaves we'll continue to make the choices that ease our burden, even if they're extremely harmful in the long run.
-
The data centers should not be safe for much longer. Especially once they use up the water of their small towns nearby
If they told me to ration water so a company could cool a machine, I'd become a fucking terrorist.
-
People are overworked, underpaid, and struggling to make rent in this economy while juggling 3 jobs or taking care of their kids, or both.
They are at the limits of their mental load, especially women who shoulder it disproportionately in many households. AI is used to drastically reduce that mental load. People suffering from burnout use it for unlicensed therapy. I'm not advocating for it, I'm pointing out why people use it.
Treating AI users like a moral failure and disregarding their circumstances does nothing to discourage the use of AI. All you are doing is enforcing their alienation of anti-AI sentiment.
First, understand the person behind it. Address the root cause, which is that AI companies are exploiting the vulnerabilities of people with or close to burnout by selling the dream of a lightened workload.
It's like eating factory farmed meat. If you have eaten it recently, you know what horrors go into making it. Yet, you are exhausted from a long day of work and you just need a bite of that chicken to take the edge off to remain sane after all these years. There is a system at work here, greater than just you and the chicken. It's the industry as a whole exploiting consumer habits. AI users are no different.
We shouldn't accuse people of moral failings. That's inaccurate and obfuscates the actual systemic issues and incentives at play.
But people using this for unlicensed therapy are in danger. More often than not LLMs will parrot whatever you give in the prompt.
People have died from AI usage including unlicensed therapy. This would be like the factory farmed meat eating you.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/woman-dies-suicide-using-ai-172040677.html
