this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2025
244 points (93.3% liked)

Fuck AI

3970 readers
786 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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's important to be clear and honest about what a study is saying, even if it's not as unequivocally negative as the venue might appreciate.

Of course. If you're talking about presenting nuance then I would just briefly mention the generation of studies that showed exposure to television reduced cognitive abilities and were full of nuance. Because all of those studies were ignored, and more showing television advertising had no effect on people (how did those studies get funded I wonder, well anyway) nothing happened and here we are in Libertarian paradise.

AI is much more affecting and it's adoption isn't being "offered", it's being mandated. I think we can dispense with some of the nuance in headlines and leave that to the researchers looking at the raw data.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Nah, I don't think we can. You may be okay with hyperbolic lies from an antivax quackery website, but I'm not.

I think our use of LLMs is overblown and rife with issues, but I don't think the answer to that is to wrap your concerns in so much obvious bullshit that anyone who does even a cursory glance will see that it's bunk. All you do is convey "people who think LLMs and generative AI are worrisome are full of shit".

AI is much more affecting

Gee, if only there were some way to find information that validates those claims and be confident that people haven't labeled them grossly incorrectly....

Why are you talking about TV, as an aside? People doing research poorly or ignoring research in the past is irrelevant to if we should lie to people now.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Why are you talking about TV, as an aside? People doing research poorly or ignoring research in the past is irrelevant to if we should lie to people now.

First of all, it's as relevant as anything can be. Just say you don't know anything about it. Secondly, who's lying?

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

The article you linked to. Most people would call "saying inaccurate things" was a form of "lying".

Explain why it's relevant. I get that you're saying "they said TV was fine and it caused problems". I don't see how that's relevant to "we should say things that aren't true about AI".