• ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Some people absolutely will, or for even more than that. Fast food addiction is a serious problem for some. I’ve seen people spend over a hundred dollars on fast food when they could’ve gotten a week’s worth of better food for that price instead.

  • makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    152
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    AI is untrustworthy and shouldn’t be used

    I have management talking about copilot usage rates and I hear people casually refer to “what ChatGPT told them” in conversation

    • thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      i actively zone out when anyone higher up than me talks about copilot or chat gpt. i also dressed down a colleague for using chat gpt for a stupid simple task.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      AI is untrustworthy and shouldn’t be used

      I have a more nuanced take. AI is simultaneously untrustworthy and useful. For many queries, DuckDuckGo and Google are performing considerably worse than they used to, while Perplexity usually yields good results. Perplexity also handles complex queries traditional search engines just can’t.

      About a third of the time, Perplexity’s text summary of what it found is inaccurate; it may even say the opposite of what a source does. Reading the sources and evaluating their reliability is no less important than with traditional search, but much of the time I think I wouldn’t have found the same sources that way.

      Of course there are other issues with AI, such as power usage and Perplexity in particular being known for aggressive web scraping.

      Nuance and depth isn’t as popular as I’d like on or off Lemmy.

      • makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        2 days ago

        Ah, but you see, I never claimed AI isn’t useful. In fact, you can check my comment history. I’ve agreed AI is a very useful tool, I still think it shouldn’t be used for ethical, social, and personal reasons

        A problem with nuance is that people want to discuss the specifics and nuances of what they care about but for the most part won’t do that on subjects for other people. So you need to tailor your responses to your audience. FWIW on Lemmy I see a lot more instances of people with specificly opposed takes where both sides have similar vote counts. So while it’s not perfect it’s better than most

        • village604@adultswim.fan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          You can theoretically have an ethical LLM. You can train one from the ground up on non-copyrighted materials using renewable energy.

          But I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that it’s not uncommon for technology to start off super inefficient. A computer used to take up an entire floor of an office building, and a hard drive with a few KB of storage used to be the size of a fridge.

          Now you can have a system orders of magnitude more powerful that’s the size of a postage stamp and consumes less than 1W of power.

          • makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            Lots of things theoretically exist: a reasonable terms and conditions, a functioning DMV, a unified charging standard, etc. I’m going to focus my energy on things that are real and not hope someone decides to be morally upstanding. If you’re arguing that the bullshit machine that spreads lies that actively harm people could become so ubiquitous that it fits in any electronic device if we just keep giving it money, then I’d say you’re making my argument for me

      • village604@adultswim.fan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’ve found it to be extremely useful for stuff like one-off powershell commands that I’ll use like 3x in my career.

        Just today I was trying to find the command line switches for disk2vhd, and none of the top results, even the official page for the app, had them.

        But Google’s AI had them and provided sources I could use to verify the information.

        But people didn’t do that last part before AI, so I can see why it’s an issue.

        • YeahIgotskills2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Absolutely. I recently needed to satisfy auditors with a report on our network security. Our main guy was on leave, but I quickly got the evidence I needed with a few powershell commands that I would have previously spent way more time googling.

          It’s also decent at reports and short, impersonal emails to suppliers etc. It frees up a lot of my time to do actual work, and for that I think it’s decent.

          Like basically everything in life, the truth is between the extremes. For me it’s useful, but doesn’t replace me and my team. I’m neither an AI evangelist or detractor. It’s just another tool.

      • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think ddg and Google are performing worse because of AI. Pushing their AI services and the tsunami of AI slop make a search harder than SEO did and deprioritizes fixing it.

        • Yardy Sardley@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s also a way to inflate the number of ads a user has to wade through before they find what they’re looking for. Classic monopolist bullshit.

      • bizarroland@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think current state-of-the-art AI is useful for when you are not having a novel thought.

        I believe that AI, at least in the form of LLMs, is currently incapable of novelty in the sense of creating a new concept or a new thought with reason and purpose behind it.

        For instance, if I was going to write a book, I might consult with LLMs about how to fill in the slow gaps or the dead spaces in my storyline and to fully come up with a completely fleshed out story that I would then write without its assistance.

        My assumption is that anything that it fills in is going to be cobbled together from literally hundreds of thousands of other similar stories, and therefore it will not be new or unique in any way.

        If I was really trying to push the envelope, I would then assume that the right thing to do would be that whatever it says is ordinary and common, and if I want to be extraordinary and uncommon, then I need to use that as a launch point for my own gap-filling content.

        Therefore, I could use an LLM to write a good story with a new concept, a new premise, a new storyline that is relatively unique and original by using the LLM to clearly identify those things that are not.

    • GalacticTaterTot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think it is useful with a constrained dataset. Like using it to summarize things about a dataset, or dumping documents into it and asked getting info about it (like Gemini in Google Drive).

      It is not useful for general question using the whole-ass internet as a dataset.

      Also I wish it was called something other than AI…it’s just a word guesser FFS.

      • SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        We should are least refer to inference LLMs as LLMs. The fact that if you asked it something like who is the current CS2 top team, it would give you the top team at the time it was trained is enough proof that the models effectively know nothing.

      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        the only useful thing my company and collegues have fold for it is taking meeting notes. it just logs everything and summarizies stuff, and it’s like 90% accurate, but it does make plenty of errors.

        however, if i give a presentation with screen sharing, it can’t do shit to summarize that.

    • Annoyed_🦀 @lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      I have people telling me how to do my work because “That’s what ChatGPT suggested, and they’re always accurate”.

      🤷

    • HubertManne@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      how to say with this. I see pretty much an equal split between ai is best thing ever, ai will doom us all, and like ai has some uses and may get more but we need to make sure any use is worth the energy usage.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      As a software developer I fully agree. People bash on it constantly here but the fact is is that it’s required for our jobs now. I just made it through a job hunt and every tech screen I did they not only insisted on me using AI, but they figured how much I was using too.

      The fact is is that like it or not it does speed us up, and it is a tool in our toolbelt. You don’t have to trust it 100% or blindly accept what it does, but you do need to be able to use it. Refusing to use it is like refusing to use the designer for WinForms 20 years ago, or refusing to use an IDE at work. You’re going to be at a massive disadvantage to your competing jobseekers who are more than happy to use AI.

      • acchariya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        I review take home assignments and mostly we receive AI submissions. It’s easy to tell when they aren’t AI though because we get thoughtful comments about why one choice was made over another, and comments on the higher level view that only come from product context and experience. I don’t think one single fully ai-created submission has made it passed the code review part.

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          See it’s hard as an interviewer because for the first time ever I lost points at one place because I didn’t use AI at all, and they almost didn’t say yes to me. Their feedback quite literally was that it functioned well, but I could have got it done faster with AI.

          • acchariya@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Seems pointless to test you on anything that could be done by ai, otherwise why even hire someone, just have fewer devs using more ai right? I want to test people on whether they have experience to notice things and make decisions. Idk if they generate the busy work but that isn’t what I’m grading them on

            • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Hey preaching to the choir there, but other companies were saying “if they didn’t use AI for this they won’t here either”. For your interviewees sake, make sure AI use is extremely specific for every step in the interview. I had places where they were upset I didn’t use AI at this step, but did on this other step. It’s batshit out there.

    • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      The propaganda is so strong with this one. If you talk to someone who owns just about anything, they somehow imagine you’re coming after them and their stuff if you even mention anything like taxing the rich, much less getting rid of people who own more than some entire counties.

      • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        They just worked harder than the rest of us and had good ideas at the right time.

        Erm, no, that still doesn’t make their labour worth thousands of times more than the next person.

        People I talk to know millionaire workaholics and think that but for some timing that person would be a billionaire because they don’t understand how orders of magnitude work. 100k in the bank vs 1 million is a much smaller barrier than 1 million vs 1 billion never mind 100 billion

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        The whole 1% slogan was fucking stupid. We all know decent people in the 1%. It’s the .001% that are the problem.

        • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          most of the 1% I have known are not decent at all. they are just good at playing the victim and passing the buck to someone else wealthier than them.

      • AmidFuror@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        I don’t think people would stop at billionaires. They’d keep going until it got uncomfortably close to their own level of wealth, but the people worse off than them wouldn’t stop there, either.

        • Bluetreefrog@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          Provided we are talking about taxation not guillotines, it’s that really a problem? In Norway, a doctor doesn’t earn much more than a train ticket seller.

          “Why study medicine”, you ask? “Self actualisation.” Is their answer. Remember, University is free in that system, so no student debt.

          • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            in USA we have some doctors earning like 20x what other doctors earn. and they both paid the same for med school.

            hence why our primary care system is collapsing and our specialized treatment system is thriving.

    • Iced Raktajino@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      [Giancarlo Esposito Meme]

      I think billionaires shouldn’t exist because we should have appropriate levels of taxation and a “maximum wage” law.

      Lemmy thinks billionaires shouldn’t exist and are setting up guillotines.

      We are not the same.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        You are the same it’s just that yours only comes after theirs. You can’t get to yours until you do theirs first.

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    That it’s okay to kill people who disagree with you

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Outside of my tech career, I’ve never met a human that knows the word “Linux”. I don’t mean how it works, I mean they’ve never heard the word. Those same people don’t know what an operating system is. “Uh, is that like Apple?”

        • slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          I think that’s what linux fanatics don’t understand. Their answer to everything is: just install linux, it’s perfect.

          Something didn’t work, what now?

          "Oh you have a nvidia graphics card? Hahaha, okay now you go to this website and copy 32 lines of code.

          That’s all nice and all, do i have to explain that to my sister who is always proud when she doubleclicks fast enough?

    • kbal@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      If you’re in a place where that opinion is unpopular you may not be in the real world.

        • kbal@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s just that around my part of the world, not actually doing it is way more common than not thinking you probably should be doing it.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’ve actually converted multiple family members to Linux, but it does take patience to work with them ensuring they can do everything they currently do

    • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      This is popular. Just look at the celebrations when bin laden got killed. Or how people celebrate executions of heionous criminals. Sure, they say they don’t like “murder”, but they think like: “he should get the death penalty”, which is practically the same thought, but worded in a more… “legal” phrasing.

      I mean maybe not “majority”, but there’s a lot of people that are okay with death penalty. Even the liberals opposing death penalty sometimes think that a mass shooter should get executed, like that white supremacist dude that murdered black people in a church (not gonna name the shithead), biden was doing pardons when he was leaving office and that guy was one of the ones that he did not commute the death sentence of. So he basically implied that he approved of the racist murder getting executed. A president of the US implicitly approved of a killing (a good decision, btw), I mean… that’s as mainstream as it can get.

      Death to the Charleston Church shooter. Lolol (To mods: this is not “violence” since dude is on death row, I’m just wishing for it to be faster LOL)

      TLDR: “Murder” bad, “Executions” okay, is basically the sentinment of some people.

      • Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        People online just want to sound virtuous and benevolent when it is convenient. Sure they can sometimes scream about how “The government gets to kill you and that’s bad!” and whatever. We don’t know how many of them actually like that idea but I do assume a lot do, they just don’t outright say it because they feel they have online PR to care for.

    • Sunsofold@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      That seems pretty popular out in the world as well, just usually with slightly different selections of ‘sometimes.’

  • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I still have no idea what a Tankie is. As far as I can tell it only exists here on Lemmy and I might be one.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      23 hours ago

      The term came into use for communists who supported the Soviet Union sending in tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, with the commentary being that tankies supported Soviet imperialism over local revolution.

      So supporting Palestine over Israel doesn’t make someone a tankie, but supporting Russia over Ukraine does.

    • thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 days ago

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie

      Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the occurrence of the events thereof. More specifically, the term has been applied to those who express support for one-party Marxist–Leninist socialist republics, whether contemporary or historical. It is commonly used by anti-authoritarian leftists, anarchists, libertarian socialists, left communists, social democrats, democratic socialists, and reformists to criticise Leninism, although the term has seen increasing use by liberal and right‐wing factions as well.[5][4]

    • greenbit@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s just a variety of fascist, pretending to belong with ideologies and principles that are not compatible

    • Blisterexe@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      As an example, I recently had someone unironically claim that china has more free speech than france, from a server hosted in france 🤦

      • neidu3@sh.itjust.worksM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        By skimming the front page I don’t see many tankie-traits. Loads of communism and socialism, sure, but not much tankie stuff. But I’m sure there’s a lot of them in the comments with “interesting” takes on the cultural revolution and the holodomor.

        • chunes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          You’re right. It seems to be mostly anarchists and such. There might have been more tankies back in the day, or maybe I just misremembered.

        • grte@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          In practice, liberals and anarchists call anyone who defines themselves as a communist a tankie. Liberals will frequently use it for anyone who claims to be any sort of socialist.

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Maybe sometimes. I don’t think this is generally true. Though I’ve also met tankies who think you’re not a real communist unless you’re a tankie. Are you one of those people?

            To me you’re not a tankie unless you consistently apologize for, minimize, or dismiss oppression under so-called socialist countries. There are a decent number of communists who don’t do this but they’re not the majority from what I’ve seen.

            • grte@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I’ve seen liberals call social democrats tankies. It’s been turned into a meaningless term.

              • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                A word sometimes being misused doesn’t make it meaningless. Personally, I don’t see this all that often.

                But yeah I mean incorrect usage should be criticized when it appears, certainly.

              • Blisterexe@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                I think you may be misinterpreting soc-dems or anarchists or whoever else on the left as liberals

                • grte@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Well give that another think because you’re wrong. This idea that liberals don’t use the word tankie is so off base and moronic I don’t know where you guys are coming from.

          • Coyote_sly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted for this. I’ve SEEN real tankies, doing odd things like cheering for BRICS to rise up or Russia to defeat NATO in Ukraine because late stage capitalist oligarchy counts as communism if it’s Russian or something, I don’t know?

            But the VAST majority of the time I see it used is by neoliberals as an excuse to dismiss literally anyone anywhere on the actual political left out of hand.

            • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              neoliberals would not call you a “tankie”, since “communist” is already a deogratory/perjorative term for them.