How is your assessment of a relationship any different than this author’s? You both are setting the rules of the friendship’s quality based on your opinions then presenting those opinions as more.
He “became dumb” when he started giving up on knowing the truth about things and instead believing the output of LLMs, yes. And anybody who doesn’t understand that and won’t listen to reason when it comes to how that stunts their intellectual development deserves to be ditched.
If you stick by your friends regardless of what they do, cool, but some of us have standards and enough friends to enforce those standards without going lonely. It must suck knowing you’re stuck no matter what.
Bro, he used the thing to search for a venue for a show, he didn’t try to get it to spit out a physics paper.
I dare you to send all your friends a message telling them you can’t be friends with them if they use AI. I bet a lot of them will respond with just question marks because it’s literally unhinged behavior.
If it affects you this much, it’s because you have become way too emotional about it. Touch grass bro, AI isn’t the greatest evil since Hitler.
Bro, he used the thing to search for a venue for a show,
That’s an incredibly stupid use for an LLM. If someone’s that stupid in this way, they’re probably stupid in other ways. Some upstream decision making process is broken.
There are more fish in the sea. If you’re traveling and looking for a hotel, you could stay at the one with the broken windows. Maybe it’s fine! Maybe there’s a good reason, and the windows aren’t even in the guest rooms. But you could also just not bother, and stay someplace that doesn’t have obvious red flags.
A broad stroke based on not much. It’s not black or white, it’s about time vs quality, and the quality is mostly dependant on how easily available the info is.
In any case, it still makes you a shitty friend. In the scope of things, it’s a drop in the bucket. Are you really going to drop someone everytime they do something you think is stupid? There’s a lot of arrogance in that statement, thinking you are somehow the arbiter of intelligence. Must be tiresome for people around you, having to adapt to such a high bar that only exists in your mind.
We are talking about breaking friendships, and even a marriage in the author’s case, over software.
I also think there’s a media campaign being waged to get people riled up. Some of these articles read like gop level rhetoric. The emotional aspect is very noticeable from the outside, especially when we get anything where the classic “protect the children” can apply.
My assesment is different then the author’s because it isn’t shallow. I also never actually explained what I value in friendships, just that it isn’t the software my friends use.
Your direct comparison brings nothing to the table since it’s mostly a fallacy anyways (bOtH aRe OpiNioNs) and is faulty since there’s nothing on my side to compare.
I’m telling you I don’t understand your point. Am I missing something? Explain it again if I am misunderstanding.
I’m guessing though I will get an other empty one liner saying nothing or no reply so you can keep pretending.
Anyone actually using that shit is either ignorant and completely out of the loop, doesn’t care about the numerous ethical issues it has, or welcomes said issues with open arms.
The only acceptable scenario would be someone who genuinely hasn’t learned about why this shit sucks so much, and is willing to completely drop it after they learn. Someone who’s aware and still uses it isn’t someone to associate with.
I don’t actually think many people are open to changing anything, even with information that may indicate good reasons to. Even with good reasons proving they should.
This entire argument could be had over every divisive societal split.
At first they seem rational.
“Letting common people learn how to read books is a bad idea.”
“Listening to the radio is the down fall of this world.”
“TV is a really bad idea.”
“I don’t make friends with Nazis.”
Then they run the gamut of becoming they sound ever so slightly smarter.
“I don’t make friends with conservatives.”
“I don’t make friends with Republicans.”
Skipping ahead:
“I don’t hangout with people who spend all their time watching (insert streaming service here)”
“I don’t like people who don’t hate AI.”
“I don’t date people who use AI.”
“AI use will prevent me from being friends with someone.”
This is just a smattering of divides, there are plenty in between all these if I had to make a spectrum of them, but you get the point.
Anyway, somewhere on this spectrum you find your spot, and everything previous to that spot seems absolutely obvious, your exact spot seems reasonable, and everything beyond you seems utter lunacy.
Currently I’m pretty strong in the “all AI is bad AI” end of it. I think translating can be useful, but still isn’t great, but I can easily see how a perfectly-preserved translation can be useful. But I don’t see much actual use or value beyond that. And given it’s enormous power and water drain just to support something that might be valuable later, this approach is ass-backwards.
Previous world shaking technologies were easy to find value in pretty quick. Language, printing press, radio, TV… So could be used for brain rot, but information sharing is generally good (if it’s honest).
But AI doesn’t really have a killer application (yet, anyway) and devoting this much to it before we figure out any potential way to use it that makes it worth what we’re giving up to use it is absolutely bonkers.
I don’t personally currently know of anything that’s even possible that it can be used for, but I’m willing to hear use cases.
Meanwhile we’ve got lazy thinkers that have less than zero reason to believe in God that still do. So just having evidence isn’t all there is to it. You have to be open enough to acknowledge and change with that evidence.
You’re the only one that seems to be saying that? Someone not wanting to date or be friends with you doesn’t mean you’re worthless. It’s unreasonable to expect to get along with everyone, or have everyone open to dating you.
If you are ready to drop a friend because he used chatgpt instead of google, you were never a good friend to begin with. Wtf is this.
How is your assessment of a relationship any different than this author’s? You both are setting the rules of the friendship’s quality based on your opinions then presenting those opinions as more.
Im saying their rules are stupidly shallow.
It’s all opinions unless you have the official big book of friendship rules open in front of you.
Instead of saying “hihi, both of these are opinions”, why don’t you try to justify theirs instead?
You aren’t actually making a point.
Okay, I’ll justify their point: people who use LLMs are, on average, dumb as fuck. And more insidiously, they will get more dumb over time.
He was a good intelligent friend, and then became “dumb” because he used something you don’t like.
Reminds me of teenagers hating each other for the brand of clothing they wear. Incredibly shallow.
He “became dumb” when he started giving up on knowing the truth about things and instead believing the output of LLMs, yes. And anybody who doesn’t understand that and won’t listen to reason when it comes to how that stunts their intellectual development deserves to be ditched.
If you stick by your friends regardless of what they do, cool, but some of us have standards and enough friends to enforce those standards without going lonely. It must suck knowing you’re stuck no matter what.
Bro, he used the thing to search for a venue for a show, he didn’t try to get it to spit out a physics paper.
I dare you to send all your friends a message telling them you can’t be friends with them if they use AI. I bet a lot of them will respond with just question marks because it’s literally unhinged behavior.
If it affects you this much, it’s because you have become way too emotional about it. Touch grass bro, AI isn’t the greatest evil since Hitler.
You’re getting ratioed because you are acting delusional about something rather important, FYI.
I know what sub I’m in. Funny how easy it is to avoid all my point, I guess it’s fun to pretend.
That’s an incredibly stupid use for an LLM. If someone’s that stupid in this way, they’re probably stupid in other ways. Some upstream decision making process is broken.
There are more fish in the sea. If you’re traveling and looking for a hotel, you could stay at the one with the broken windows. Maybe it’s fine! Maybe there’s a good reason, and the windows aren’t even in the guest rooms. But you could also just not bother, and stay someplace that doesn’t have obvious red flags.
A broad stroke based on not much. It’s not black or white, it’s about time vs quality, and the quality is mostly dependant on how easily available the info is.
In any case, it still makes you a shitty friend. In the scope of things, it’s a drop in the bucket. Are you really going to drop someone everytime they do something you think is stupid? There’s a lot of arrogance in that statement, thinking you are somehow the arbiter of intelligence. Must be tiresome for people around you, having to adapt to such a high bar that only exists in your mind.
It’s really fascinating to me how AI pushers inevitably fall back to accusing anyone who isn’t singing the praises of LLMs as being “too emotional”.
Because once you shut down all their inane excuses, all they have left is gaslighting.
We are talking about breaking friendships, and even a marriage in the author’s case, over software.
I also think there’s a media campaign being waged to get people riled up. Some of these articles read like gop level rhetoric. The emotional aspect is very noticeable from the outside, especially when we get anything where the classic “protect the children” can apply.
FR
Do you typically get this upset when challenged?
It isn’t much of a challenge if your statement is meaningless.
Seems like you are falling back to rhetoric. I’m guessing you can’t actually justify their opinion because it is actually brutally shallow.
If it’s meaningless why even reply?
Do you typically start running around in circles when challenged?
I mean, if you have a point to make, then make it. It’s just that your previous comment didn’t have any.
I’ve been pretty clear with my responses, including my original one seeing that it was a question.
My assesment is different then the author’s because it isn’t shallow. I also never actually explained what I value in friendships, just that it isn’t the software my friends use.
Your direct comparison brings nothing to the table since it’s mostly a fallacy anyways (bOtH aRe OpiNioNs) and is faulty since there’s nothing on my side to compare.
I’m telling you I don’t understand your point. Am I missing something? Explain it again if I am misunderstanding.
I’m guessing though I will get an other empty one liner saying nothing or no reply so you can keep pretending.
Anyone actually using that shit is either ignorant and completely out of the loop, doesn’t care about the numerous ethical issues it has, or welcomes said issues with open arms.
The only acceptable scenario would be someone who genuinely hasn’t learned about why this shit sucks so much, and is willing to completely drop it after they learn. Someone who’s aware and still uses it isn’t someone to associate with.
I don’t actually think many people are open to changing anything, even with information that may indicate good reasons to. Even with good reasons proving they should.
This entire argument could be had over every divisive societal split.
At first they seem rational.
“Letting common people learn how to read books is a bad idea.”
“Listening to the radio is the down fall of this world.”
“TV is a really bad idea.”
“I don’t make friends with Nazis.”
Then they run the gamut of becoming they sound ever so slightly smarter.
“I don’t make friends with conservatives.”
“I don’t make friends with Republicans.”
Skipping ahead:
“I don’t hangout with people who spend all their time watching (insert streaming service here)”
“I don’t like people who don’t hate AI.”
“I don’t date people who use AI.”
“AI use will prevent me from being friends with someone.”
This is just a smattering of divides, there are plenty in between all these if I had to make a spectrum of them, but you get the point.
Anyway, somewhere on this spectrum you find your spot, and everything previous to that spot seems absolutely obvious, your exact spot seems reasonable, and everything beyond you seems utter lunacy.
Currently I’m pretty strong in the “all AI is bad AI” end of it. I think translating can be useful, but still isn’t great, but I can easily see how a perfectly-preserved translation can be useful. But I don’t see much actual use or value beyond that. And given it’s enormous power and water drain just to support something that might be valuable later, this approach is ass-backwards.
Previous world shaking technologies were easy to find value in pretty quick. Language, printing press, radio, TV… So could be used for brain rot, but information sharing is generally good (if it’s honest).
But AI doesn’t really have a killer application (yet, anyway) and devoting this much to it before we figure out any potential way to use it that makes it worth what we’re giving up to use it is absolutely bonkers.
I don’t personally currently know of anything that’s even possible that it can be used for, but I’m willing to hear use cases.
Meanwhile we’ve got lazy thinkers that have less than zero reason to believe in God that still do. So just having evidence isn’t all there is to it. You have to be open enough to acknowledge and change with that evidence.
I don’t associate with filthy clankers. And if you use LLMs, you are a clanker, as you’ve sold your soul to the machine.
Good to know where most of the people here on the fediverse lie with this topic, that they view people who use AI in any way as worthless humans.
If you willingly give your humanity to the machine, you are the one dehumanizing yourself.
You’re the only one that seems to be saying that? Someone not wanting to date or be friends with you doesn’t mean you’re worthless. It’s unreasonable to expect to get along with everyone, or have everyone open to dating you.