1295
Moving in the right direction
(discuss.online)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
1295 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck AI
8012 readers
1397 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Where does the thought come from? If you write five articles about the topic or any topic, will they be the same?
They won't look the same but they'll convey the same information consistently.
Even about topics that you barely are familiar with?
If the prompt includes the older articles, or if the NN is updated once an article is written, wouldn't AI be consistent, too?
Then I research from known references starting with Wikipedia and using the sources at the bottom of the page to expand my research out further.
The entirety of how LLMs work is token prediction based on the entire collective of human creation, that is not research, that is not understanding. that is an over engineered autocomplete. Guessing what the next token is in a string of characters is not the same knowledge of the topic. How much does the Epic of Gilgamesh and the complete works of Shakespeare and the writings of Adolf Hitler and the unhinged Tumblr posts of every Susie, Harry, and Jillian and all of the statistical models born from vectorizing all of that into a billion dimensional vectorspace have any impact on the final output, how does any of that have anything to do with any medical or legal inquiries?
Ive already explained multiple times how a glorified autocomplete predicting words is not knowledge. If you're going to keep sealioning I'm done with this conversation.
Not on your last two comment pages. Do you have a link?
How do you write? Do you know your entire sentences and paragraphs before you write them down?
So you're just gonna keep sealioning, exactly as I predicted. Got it, glad to establish this conversation is going to go nowhere. You can repeat my last handful of comments in this thread. I dont have time to waste entertaining your asinine questioning. You've been nothing but fake polite in order to waste all of our time.
It's you who uses words statistically. You said "explained multiple times". If you did, finding a link to an old comment doesn't take time. You use this big word without understanding it.
A yes or no would have been a perfect answer. You wrote the long comment to avoid writing a no.
Anything in this comic seem familiar?
My comment was a counter-example. The situation is similar but not the same. It could be considered a statistical match.
No it wasn't, stop lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Sealioning:
I pointed out that your knowledge has a random element, too.
You fall back to
I am not saying that LLM are not statistical. I am saying that your knowledge is statistical, too.
There is no request for evidence but I would be interested in understanding why "predicting words is not knowledge".
So you're just gonna keep sealioning and not take the hint. I'm done discussing, if you're incapable of reading my previous comments on the discussion, then leave, stop commenting. This comment section has no room for bad faith sophistry with no relevant substance to the discussion at hand.
A counter-example is not sealioning. Otherwise you could claim the earth is flat and win all debates by calling all counter-arguments sealioning.
You never gave any counter examples, you have only been spending your time in this thread JAQing off.
That's not a counterexample, thats JAQing Off and your JAQoff is a false dichotomy. The form information takes and the information itself are not the same. If I make a video about how G is Grab in Blender, and then write an article about how G is Grab in Blender, and then make an audio recording about how G is Grab in Blender, and then I make a pictogram about how G is Grab in Blender, and then create an interpretive dance about how G is Grab in Blender, they all look different but are communicating the same piece of information: that G is Grab in Blender.
The forms are different, the information is the same. AI doesn't do that. It predicts tokens of what is most likely without any understanding of the concept.
Like that dance, your imagination is also a representation and not the information itself, which makes it subject to the random processes that happen in your brain.
My imagination has nothing to do with the reality that G is Grab in Blender. Maybe reality is a collective hallucination, but that doesn't matter because we don't behave like it is. Knock off the pseudoprofound sophistry.
Your imagination about the Blender G comes from biological processes that have stored an imperfect representation of the fact in your mind. Those processes are not the same as the ones AI uses but they are also random. Randomness itself shouldn't be a reason to distrust an AI.