690
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] prole 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Don't really care to argue about the semantics. It's clear what I meant.

[-] kopasz7@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago

To you I'm sure it is crystal clear. I'm just on the other end of communication.

[-] Corbin@programming.dev 14 points 1 month ago

You probably should have used semantics to communicate if you wanted your semantics to be unambiguous. Instead you used mere syntax and hoped that the reader would assign the same semantics that you had used. (This is apropos because language models also use syntax alone and have no semantics.)

[-] staircase@programming.dev 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree it's about semantics; it's about devaluation of communication. LLMs and their makers threaten that in multiple ways. Thinking of it as "lying" is one of them.

[-] prole 3 points 1 month ago

OK sure. I was just using the wording from the article to make a point, I wasn't trying to get into a discussion about whether "lying" requires intent.

this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
690 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

431 readers
822 users here now

Share interesting Technology news and links.

Rules:

  1. No paywalled sites at all.
  2. News articles has to be recent, not older than 2 weeks (14 days).
  3. No videos.
  4. Post only direct links.

To encourage more original sources and keep this space commercial free as much as I could, the following websites are Blacklisted:

More sites will be added to the blacklist as needed.

Encouraged:

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS