Is it personally attacking you to point out that it is a monstrous thing to use AI while it is pretty actively killing the planet or that it is using stolen labor to work and refuses to recompense said labor? Because to me, that’s just kinda how it is, and if you can’t see the issues in that, it does sort of imply someone failed you at some point.
If it is catching that many bugs, you are writing shit code or your review system blows. Likely both. The AI is about as likely to flag real bugs as it is to flag made up shit, but I still have to waste my fucking time verifying and proving the bot wrong. And you know what it didn’t do? Save me time. Because I had to verify everything it said for no fucking reason.
And my fucking god, don’t let it generate Tests. You get the worst Asserts imaginable. Goddamn. If you aren’t writing your unit tests, then you won’t know what you are testing.
Also, AI-based translation is hilariously awful. Like, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the translation was technically correct (a thing that is not even mostly true), it will always underperform in terms of meaning because good translation conveys the spirit of the words and not the letter. AI translations don’t know shit from Jack because they don’t know anything, nor do they understand the context in which the words stand. And if you are having issues with translating and you’re relying on AI to do so, then how the fuck would you even know it was working correctly?
Legitimately stupid.
But, sure, take out all the slave labor and environmentally devastating issues (a thing that only huge losers do because they are usually friendless assholes that think they’re as cool as Elon Musk and are unintentionally right), and you are left with a machine that is sometimes right but still cognitively damaging.
You just gotta do at least three hours per hour, and it’s easy!
I’m not a monkey!
We also train people how to use cars. Not as well as we should, but you do have to pass a test to use it. But there are many, many regulations for cars.
We cannot train people how to use generative AI in the same manner. Not least because there is no magic method of using it, but every single training I have been to has said, in no uncertain terms, that the AI can and will lie to you, so don’t trust anything it says. Usually directly after it has failed to do as asked.
We do not gate AI. Anyone can use it, and it is, frankly, devastatingly addictive to many people. It has killed people. It is environmentally destructive.
So, I do blame the AI companies that run the software for mistakes because they don’t fucking care. They just want money.
I think, if I were gonna make an episode like that, I would simply just take someone like Randy who is not the least bit athletic, and have him try to transition to get some sort of edge. There’s a lot of ways it could go, but really understanding the side effects of HRT and what typical requirements a standard trans athlete has to fulfill to compete as their gender would likely have Randy losing whatever competition he is in.
I mean, considering that he is canonically Lord, it wouldn’t be a crazy pick, either. This doesn’t even require adding in a trans character, but it does involve them researching transitioning and how to compete as a trans athlete.
You are just fucking wrong. You can make a South Park trans episode where you make fun of trans people without disparaging the fact they are the gender they identify as. These episodes do not promote a “both sides” approach to transness. They state, fairly unequivocally, that trans people do not exist. There is no other side to that narrative. The trans dolphin episode (and several Ms. Garrison episodes) makes it pretty clear they think that surgical reassignment is grotesque. The trans athlete episode is wrong on multiple different levels.
The trans athlete episode could even fucking exist with that same plotline if they showed that that rhetoric was harmful to both women and trans people and, you know, not a real thing that has ever happened. They could even try to play up that they’re trying to be too inclusive or some shit. But because they do not show a real trans athlete in that episode, there is no other side. It is purely a dunk on transwomen in women’s sports which is transphobic.
Again, there are episodes where they do their research. But most of the time, they don’t, including this. This just happens to be a topic I fully fucking understand.
Like, holy shit, this is easy shit to make fun of. Trans people are so easy to throw jokes at that don’t question their gender identity. Fucking just talk to a trans person. You can do the same level of jokes aimed at black people that they do to Token! They are racist jokes, but they don’t treat Token like black people are disgusting or awful or other disparaging stereotypes, even if he does fall into several stereotypes.
They have had multiple episodes on trans people that have basically insinuated that they are not meant to be treated seriously.
Ms. Garrison being treated as disgusting not for their horrible attitude, but for their transitioning, attempting to bodyhorror with the dolphin transitioning of Kyle’s father, and, just, the entire trans athlete episode. Also, Cartman’s mom could fall into this category if you don’t treat that as more of a one-off joke.
Essentially, they do occasionally do a lot of research on certain select topics like Tourette’s, but then they pull this shit out and you basically can see they unapologetically do not care.
Basically, they, at best, do not give a shit about trans people, and at worst, actively hate them. The trans athlete episode is, to me, especially egregious because you could ACTUALLY DO a trans athlete episode real fucking easily that gets the basic facts right and still even put their normal libertarian spin on it, and it would have been enjoyable to everyone without implying that trans people are faking it to win sports (and exclusively women’s sports at that, a thing they have previously implied in prior episodes no one gives a shit about anyway.)
Cool. Now in three months, I can repaste this reply back to you! Thank you!
Those bugs that generative AI found in Linux were some old bugs that, and I cannot stress this enough, required elevated access to your system and only crashed the machine. Basically, it wasn’t found because it never actually affected anybody, but sure, take your win. You were lacking them.
And hey man, if you caught some strays on that comment, maybe consider going outside. There are people out there that could enjoy being around you if you stopped talking about AI! They are rather nice because they typically like other people and don’t call them Luddites for not wanting to kill the planet tp avoid writing an email.
But, sure, let’s play the dumbfuck game where AI proponents use their definitions to pretend that a chatbot (a thing that doesn’t really matter to LLMs in general since they’ve existed for fucking decades) and an agent (basically the same shit as an LLM but directed) are things that truly matter in the discourse. They don’t. People that don’t want their brain rotted from the inside out just hate AI. Not wanting to turn your brain off seems pretty fucking normal to me, but maybe it doesn’t to you because the thoughts in your head are a nightmare to experience.
The market is not a predictor of good things. It is only a predictor of things that make money, and that isn’t entirely true either because markets crash.
Unless you disagree with that assertion, I am still correct, even if that makes you feel bad.
That is what people have said, every day, on repeat, for the last three years. Explain why it is better now instead of three months ago, when it was definitely not fucking up all the time and then I will copypaste that back to you for what was said three months ago for the same question.
Which standards are you gonna hold it to? The benchmarking involves using standardized testing, but they typically just feed those questions into the testing data, so the tests have to be constantly updated, and when they are, you will not be surprised to learn that the machines goes back to fucking up the answers all the time.
Experts in their fields do not use this shit because it is wrong on the things they know, but, oh wow, it must be totally right about the things I don’t know anything about? Every time.
Some tools are useless, period.
I think AI is like being given an automatic screwdriver with the speed maxed to shit. If you pay super close attention, you might be able to do things faster, with hypervigilance and expert knowledge. In most cases, though, you won’t. Congratulations, you have screwed in 100 screws, mostly incorrectly and stripped, when everyone else did 30, and you have fucked over the people who have to fix your shit.
Use it two years ago. It is wrong.
“It’s getting better EVERY DAY!”
Use it a month later. It is still wrong.
“It’s getting better EVERY DAY!”
Repeat for months on end. It is always wrong in different ways. It even finds new and unique ways to be wrong.
“It’s getting better EVERY DAY!”
Every time.
Personally, I just think the dipshits who use LLMs are just fucking morons that don’t realize it’s wrong, or they wouldn’t use it because it is still shit. But, fuck me for not wanting to use the planet-destroying technology that lies for pennies.
Damn, dude. The market thinks slave labor is great. The market thinks child labor is great. The market thinks sexual exploitation is great. I think it would be okay with making more lower quality products.
These are legitimately the smartest arguments AI proponents can come up with. They are so fucking stupid, and don’t even realize it.
Okay, so your argument is that AI is destroying the planet, but not wanting to use it is also somehow bad.
I mean, you don’t need AI to live. You might need meat to live, depending on circumstance, but anywhere that you don’t need meat to live, you definitely don’t need AI to live, so AI would be the worse one to use. So, saying the meat industry is worse is still saying AI is bad.
It just seems like you are trying to make yourself feel better, and you should absolutely feel bad.
nah you’re in a cult.
Okay. Genius revelations from the LLM.
Realistically, statistically, LLMs do not make you work better. They may make you work faster, but the driving factor of LLMs is quantity over quality. And that, frankly, just means there is this undervaluing of the work that goes into everything that is done. More is better than good, and I just don’t think most people agree.
You also cannot, realistically, capture generative AI. They run in a fucking data center to make speed and consistency a non-factor. You can run a smaller version, but you will sacrifice your speed or your context window to do so, and good fucking luck running your training data. It’s sort of like saying you can make your own factory.
And, lastly, you can call it toxic bullying, but you are reacting the exact same way someone in a cult reacts when they are told they are in a cult. Feel free to look it up! Find where I am wrong. Why can you not do that?
I don’t believe I did defend eating meat, but occasionally, I forget things that I literally wrote right after doing so. Perhaps you can quote where I did that.
The issue is the hypocrisy. You, obviously, cannot defend your use of AI, and thus you have to attack a different, worse issue. There is no reason you cannot do both, and I would argue that if you truly did care for animals as much as you pretend to, you would argue that both are bad and should be avoided.
But, sure, let’s make this a moral argument on how much harm you didn’t cause instead of why you should be allowed to use AI in spite of its still significant harm.
“Mooooooom. This guy called me Luddite on the internet again!!!”
I hope you are happy now, she is literally crying.
Anyway, is that all? I expected that your LLM would come up with refutations 20 times faster and yet I am sitting here waiting for why I’m wrong. Would you like to criticize my gas-guzzling vehicle next while you defend billion dollar AI industries on why global warming is the consumers’ fault? Perhaps that will defend your planet-destroying behavior.
I have seen every ML/LLM translation be shit, so if you want to point to a less shitty version, whatever. It will not matter to me because every AI translation given to me was god fucking awful versus even a shitty human translation because humans, in their flawed yet understandable ways, do not translate things in arbitrary ways, nor do they make the same types of mistakes that an AI does. Humans understand how humans think, and the process of writing a sentence vs a paragraph vs a chapter vs a book are just… Different? But an AI just won’t understand those differences. Not to any noticeable effect. Nor do they understand nuances in writing and dialog. They just write or do a sarcasm thing, and that’s the entirety of their repertoire. That’s all they “know”.