@denisbloodnok@mendeddrum.org You're really going to assert "nothing new here" and then as "evidence" supply hypotheticals? If you have any evidence to bring I'd be interested in hearing it; otherwise, please save both of us some time, thanks.
A
abucci@buc.ci
@abucci@buc.ci
You can now view, reply, and favourite posts from the Fediverse. You can click here or click on the on the navigation bar on the left.
Posts
-
Something I wish journalists understood better: anyone can nominate an article for deletion on Wikipedia, which kicks off a week-long discussion — even if the article is perfectly acceptable and will ultimately be kept. -
Something I wish journalists understood better: anyone can nominate an article for deletion on Wikipedia, which kicks off a week-long discussion — even if the article is perfectly acceptable and will ultimately be kept.@denisbloodnok@mendeddrum.org Sure, mass nominations by non-gen-AI systems have always been possible, but gen AI allows for DDoS'ing the human beings who might feel compelled to read some/most of them since the text is plausible. That's definitely new.
@molly0xfff@hachyderm.io
-
Something I wish journalists understood better: anyone can nominate an article for deletion on Wikipedia, which kicks off a week-long discussion — even if the article is perfectly acceptable and will ultimately be kept.@molly0xfff@hachyderm.io Out of curiosity, if a malicious entity wrote a generative AI powered script to mass-nominate articles for deletion, along the lines of what we've seen with mass AI-generated issues and commits on GitHub, would there be a process to handle that or would it effectively DDoS the editors?
-
I like to poke LinkedIn once in awhile with an "AI" critique to see what I can stir up.@SnoopJ@hachyderm.io Right down to actually holding the bad view while pretending to rise above it all!
-
I like to poke LinkedIn once in awhile with an "AI" critique to see what I can stir up.I like to poke LinkedIn once in awhile with an "AI" critique to see what I can stir up. One reason I do this is to keep an eye on the changing form of the booster rhetoric. Nowadays a lot of folks respond to critique with some form of "today's LLMs are bad but tomorrow's will be amazing", the true believer/quasi-religious response with a touch of false humility for flavor. Yesterday I got a "AI critics are just as bad as AI boosters" false dichotomy, which by my read was a variant of the "AI critics are hysterical and irrational" with the twist that the speaker was suggesting that boosters are too. That felt new-ish to me. Granted, the hubristic "we're the smart guys in the room, you should do what we say" framing is ancient in the tech industry. Suggesting the boosters are also not the smart guys in the room is an interesting move because it's an attempt to go meta. Neither the boosters nor the critics are the smart guys in the room; the smart guys in the room are actually the ones who can see that (and so you should do what they say, which is more LLMs always).
#LinkedIn #AI #GenAI #GenerativeAI #AgenticAI #LLM