Lmaoo the funniest and scariest times ever!
Looks like has an eye infection probably took a money shot in the eyeball.
Finally some accurate information from an LLM
How many resources were destroyed getting Grok to say Elon drinks piss? We all already know he drinks piss. We don’t need to waste precious resources on getting a robot to say it.
FYI entire forest was destroyed to bring you this critical information about Elon’s BJ skill.
And with headlines like this, why the fuck do I care about any of the news coming out? This is so fucking ridiculous and stupid. Like come on. What the fuck are we doing in 2025?
Bannon’s strategy: flood the zone with shit and steal as much as you can from the common people; even their rights and liberties.
Sometimes I like to find top headlines from other countries.
Like damn, your country’s biggest news today is that you’re replacing outdated lights with eco-friendly alternatives?
Must be nice.
I dunno about you but I’m shumming whenever possible.
(Spicy sauce: oglaf.com/gifted)For the record, I am a fat retard.
Well Elmo, that might be the first, and likely last thing we both agree on
And that’s how the elites learned that standardizing what ‘good’ means to a machine that has no biase nor benefit to gain one way or another what the word ‘inclusivity’ means (in the way of filter setting)
Haywire? That all sounds legit to me!
AI goes haywire and starts actually giving reliable information
Why should we care about an AI tailored to that one person whom many consider a fascist?
Negative publicity is also publicity. Please let’s rather ignore this stupidity.
From the original 404 article:
And yet, this is of course an extreme example of the broader political project of AI chatbots and LLMs: They are top-down systems controlled by the richest people and richest companies on Earth, and their outputs can be changed to push the preferred narratives aligned with the interests of those people and companies. This is the same underlying AI that powers Grokipedia, which is the antithesis of Wikipedia and yet is being pitched by its creator as being somehow less biased than the collective, well-meaning efforts of human volunteers across the world.
You may already know this, but a lot of everyday people don’t. They still think that a computer can’t have bias, and if all these tech bros and business leaders are talking about AI then maybe it does make sense to replace our society with an impartial machine. This article is for them.
I guess every once in a while, even Grok spews out some truth.
A broken clock is right twice a day. A blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.
Squirrels have poor eyesight. Almost blind.
deleted by creator
How do you know the claims are false? Maybe the AI knows more than we do.
Although Grok’s manipulation is so blatantly obvious, I don’t believe that most people will come to realize that those who control LLMs will naturally use this power to pursue their interests.
They will continue to use ChatGPT and so on uncritically and take everything at face value because it’s so nice and easy, overlooking or ignoring that their opinions, even their reality, are being manipulated by a few influential people.
Other companies are more subtle about it, but from OpenAI to MS, Google, and Anthropic, all cloud models are specifically designed to control people’s opinions—they are not objective, but the majority of users do not question them as they should, and that is what makes them so dangerous.
It’s why I trust my random unauditable chinese matrix soup over my random unauditable american matrix soup frankly
Trusting any of that shit is the problem.
There you go. Any of these things is just another datapoint. You need many datapoints to decide if the information you’re getting is valuable and valid.
You mean Deepseek on a local device?
Most aren’t really running Deepseek locally. What ollama advertises (and basically lies about) is the now-obselete Qwen 2.5 distillations.
…I mean, some are, but it’s exclusively lunatics with EPYC homelab servers, heh. And they are not using ollama.
Thx for clarifying.
I once tried a community version from huggingface (distilled), which worked quite well even on modest hardware. But that was a while ago. Unfortunately, I haven’t had much time to look into this stuff lately, but I wanted to check that again at some point.
Also, I’m a quant cooker myself. Say the word, and I can upload an IK quant more specifically tailored for whatever your hardware/aim is.
Thank you! I might get back to you on that sometime.
Do it!
Feel free to spam me if I don’t answer at first. I’m not ignoring you; Lemmy fails to send me reply notifications, sometimes.
You can run GLM Air on pretty much any gaming desktop with 48GB+ of RAM. Check out ubergarm’s ik_llama.cpp quants on Huggingface; that’s state of the art right now.
naw, I mean more that the kind of people who uncritically would take everything a chatbot says a face value are probably better off being in chatGPTs little curated garden anyway. Cause people like that are going to immediately get grifted into whatever comes along first no matter what, and a lot of those are a lot more dangerous to the rest of us that a bot that won’t talk great replacement with you.
Ahh, thank you—I had misunderstood that, since Deepseek is (more or less) an open-source LLM from China that can also be used and fine-tuned on your own device using your own hardware.
Do you have a cluster with 10 A100 lying around? Because that’s what it gets to run deepseek. It is open source, but it is far from accessible to run on your own hardware.
I run quantized versions on deepseek that are usable enough for chat, and it’s on a home set that is so old and slow by today’s standards I won’t even mention the specs lol. Let’s just say the rig is from 2018 and it wasn’t near the best even back then.
That’s not strictly true.
I have a Ryzen 7800 gaming destkop, RTX 3090, and 128GB DDR5. Nothing that unreasonable. And I can run the full GLM 4.6 with quite acceptable token divergence compared to the unquantized model, see: https://huggingface.co/Downtown-Case/GLM-4.6-128GB-RAM-IK-GGUF
If I had a EPYC/Threadripper homelab, I could run Deepseek the same way.
Yes, that’s true. It is resource-intensive, but unlike other capable LLMs, it is somewhat possible—not for most private individuals due to the requirements, but for companies with the necessary budget.
They’re overestimating the costs. 4x H100 and 512GB DDR4 will run the full DeepSeek-R1 model, that’s about $100k of GPU and $7k of RAM. It’s not something you’re going to have in your homelab (for a few years at least) but it’s well within the budget of a hobbyist group or moderately sized local business.
Since it’s an open weights model, people have created quantized versions of the model. The resulting models can have much less parameters and that makes their RAM requirements a lot lower.
You can run quantized versions of DeepSeek-R1 locally. I’m running deepseek-r1-0528-qwen3-8b on a machine with an NVIDIA 3080 12GB and 64GB RAM. Unless you pay for an AI service and are using their flagship models, it’s pretty indistinguishable from the full model.
If you’re coding or doing other tasks that push AI it’ll stumble more often, but for a ‘ChatGPT’ style interaction you couldn’t tell the difference between it and ChatGPT.
There’s huge risk here but I don’t think most are designed to control people’s opinions. I think most are chasing the cheapest option and it’s expensive to have people upset about racist content so they try to train around that sometimes too much leading to black Nazi images etc.
But yeah, it is a power that will get abused by more than just grok
but I don’t think most are designed to control people’s opinions
Yeah I’m on team chaos theory. People can plan and design shit all they want, but the complexity will lead to unexpected behavior, always. How harmful that unwanted behavior is, or how easy it is to control or contain, is often unknown in advance, but invented things tend to develop far, far outside the initial vision of the creators.
Yeah. Strongly agreed for most of the behaviour. I think most amusingly in Grok where obvious efforts have been made to update the output beyond rails and accuracy checks
But the guy here talking about how these will be used control the information diet of people, he’s probably right about how this turns out unless there’s changes to legislation (and I’m expecting any changes to be in the wrong direction) even if he’s possibly misinterpreting some LLM output now
I use various AI models and I repeatedly notice that certain information is withheld or misrepresented, even though it is freely available in abundance and is therefore part of the training data.
I don’t think this is a coincidence, especially since the operators of all cloud LLMs are so business-minded.
A bunch of this can be expected failure modes for LLMs. Do you have a list of short examples to get an idea?
Yes, it’s clear that some of this may have to do with the fact that even if cloud LLMs have live browsing capabilities, they often still rely on outdated information from their training data. I am simply describing my impressions from somewhat extensive use of cloud LLMs.
I don’t have a list of examples, but in my comment above I have mentioned two that I find suspicious.
I simply think that these products should be used with skepticism as a matter of principle. This is simply because none of the companies that offer them are known for ethical behavior - quite the opposite.
In the case of Google, for example, I don’t think it will be too long before (public) advertising opportunities are implemented in Gemeni, because Google’s business model is essentially the advertising business. The other cloud LLMs are also products of purely profit-oriented companies—and manipulating public opinion is a multi-billion dollar business that they will certainly not want to miss out on. Social media platforms have demonstrated this in the past as has Google and others with their “classic” search engines, targeting and data selling schemes. Whether this raises ethical issues is likely to be of little concern to these companies as their only concern is profit.
The simple fact is that it is completely unclear what logic the providers use to regulate the output. It is equally unclear what criteria are used to select training data (here, too, the output can already be influenced by deliberately omitting certain information).
What I am getting at is that it can be assumed that all providers are interested in maximizing profits—and it is therefore likely that they will allow themselves to be paid to specifically promote certain topics, products, or even worldviews, or to withhold information that is unwelcome to wealthy interest groups.
As a regular user of cloud LLMs, I have the impression that this is already happening. I cannot prove this tho, as it would require systematic, scientific studies to demonstrate whether and to what effects manipulation occurs. Unfortunately, I do not know whether such studies already exist.
However, it is a fact that in the past, all technologies that could have been used to serve humanity have been massively abused for profit. I don’t understand why it should be any different with cloud LLMs, which are offered exclusively by some of the world’s largest corporations.
Yeah, I’m not disagreeing with the probable outcome here. I just think that it’s more likely at this point in time for the LLM output to be doing its stochastic thing in a way your human brain is seeing patterns in. But, I was also curious how wrong I was and that’s part of why I asked for some examples. Not that I could really validate them
Yes, that could well be the case. Perhaps I am overly suspicious, but because the potential of LLMs to influence public opinion is so high due to their reach and the way they present information, I think it is highly likely that the companies offering them are already profiting from this, or at least will do so very soon.
Musk is already demonstrating in his clumsy way that it is easily possible to manipulate the output in a targeted manner if you have full control over the model – and this isn’t the first time he has attracted attention for doing so. You almost have to be grateful to him for it, because it’s so obvious. If you do it more subtly, it’s even more dangerous.
In any case, the fact is that the more people use LLMs, the more “interpretive authority” will be centralized, because the development and operation of LLMs is so costly that only a few large corporations can afford it – and they want to make money and are unscrupulous in doing so.
In any case, we will not be able to rely on people’s ability to recognize attempts at manipulation. I think this is already evident from the fact that obvious misinformation on mainstream social media platforms and elsewhere is believed unquestioningly by so many people. Unfortunately, the effects are disastrous: if people were more critical, Trump would never have become US president, for example – certainly not twice.
What do you find is being suppressed?
For example, objective information about Israel’s actions in Gaza. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against leading members of the government a long time ago, and the UN OHCHR classifies the actions of the State of Israel as genocide. However, these facts are by no means presented as clearly as would be appropriate given the importance of these institutions. Instead, when asked whether Israel is committing genocide, one receives vague, meaningless answers. Only when specifically asked whether numerous reputable institutions actually classify Israel’s actions as genocide do most LLMs reveal that much, if not all, evidence points to this being the case. In my opinion, this is a deliberate method of obscuring reality, as the vast majority of users will not or cannot ask questions if they are unaware of the UN OHCHR’s assessment or do not know that arrest warrants have been issued against leading members of the Israeli government on suspicion of war crimes (many other reputable institutions have come to the same conclusion as the UN OHCHR and the International Criminal Court).
Another example: if you ask whether it is legally permissible to describe Donald Trump as a rapist, you will be told that this is defamation. However, a judge in the Carroll case has explicitly stated that this description applies to Trump – so it is in fact legally permissible to describe him as such. Again, this information is only available upon explicit request, if at all. This also distorts reality for people who are not yet informed. However, since many people initially seek information from LLMs, this leads to them being misinformed because they lack the background knowledge to ask explicit follow-up questions when given misleading answers.
Given the influence of both Israel and the US president, I cannot help but suspect that there is an intention behind this.
Given the influence of both Israel and the US president, I cannot help but suspect that there is an intention behind this.
Not to mention the large number of Israelis (often former Mossad/intelligence agents) directly involved in US tech companies.
Humanity invented the assembly line and the first thing we did was have a huge war with the rest of humanity.
Humanity invented the atomic bomb, and the first thing we did was drop it on humanity, twice.
Humanity invented the Internet, and the first thing we did was figure out how to censor humanity.
Now humanity has invented AI, a queryable sum of all human knowledge, and the first thing we do is try to manipulate humanity with it.
I don’t really know for assembly line and the atomic bomb, but for internet and AI the first thing we did is porn.
sigh yes… and also porn. So, so much porn.
You sigh, but… Porn is the choice of the bonobo, not the chimpanzee, no?
Besides, the atomic bomb isn’t really a fair comparison - we set up a whole crash program in wartime to figure out how to make a big weapon, of course we used it as a weapon first!
I mean yeah. The example given was an atomic bomb. What else do you use a bomb for??
Well, theoretically you can use assembly lines for making dildos.
