LLMs are spam generators.
Uncategorized
120
Posts
79
Posters
8
Views
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
@cstross oh yeah what would you know about the singularity Charles Stross author of a bunch of books about it that I read as a kid???
-
@cstross Love your fiction, can't agree on this take. Spam does not help with writing code, whereas LLM's can be extremely helpful.
LLM's are not generally intelligent. They can be immensely problematic, but to dismiss them as merely spam generators as you have, or "parrots" as others have is simply incorrect.
@ViennaMike @cstross Most LLMs are optimised for generating text that is as difficult as possible for humans to find faults in.
This doesn’t mean that they are mostly correct, it means that the faults that are there are very difficult for humans to find.
-
@ThePowerNap @cstross @ViennaMike
Sure there's some real helpful use cases for LLMs.I reckon if the LLM industry manages to settle down into supplying only the helpful sensible use cases for LLMs, it will be about as big - in terms of annual dollar throughput - as eg the electric kettle manufacturing sector.
But to get to that sustainable level the LLM industry would have to shrink its market cap by 3 orders of magnitude. And it probably can't do that without collapsing entirely.
@dragonfrog @cstross @ViennaMike
I more or less agree. I'm just not looking forward to the backlash those of us in the machine learning space will face (I'm in computer vision/medical).
-
There is some real utility under the hood, but goddamn.
The pushback from higher utility bills and GenAI diarrhea is justified, and a huge black eye for practical use.
@ThePowerNap @cstross I don't disagree. I think part of the path going forward will be to push more to the edge, as we've seen with other types of AI, using less powerful, but good enough, models for many applications. Models that don't require as much energy to run.
-
@VictimOfSimony @cstross If you want to debate whether or not, as a whole, LLMs are a net positive or net negative, I agree. Intelligent people can legitimately disagree. One cannot, based on the evidence, legitimately claim that they only produce spam.
I'll let @cstross speak for themselves, but I really do see this as a "define your spam" situation. The same problem led to the crossbows/harquebus debate that led to the Pope banning crossbows but not firearms. The problem is that spam's a byword for low value material of any sort, slop or not, and the idea of high-quality advertising sounds like a waste of the technology. No person off the street will ever care how high quality your product propaganda is; the material is always worthless and unwanted. The Pope didn't hate all violence, he hated the idea of the serfs killing the upper class. When confronted with two ways to let peasants put holes in plate armor with minimal training they only banned the one that didn't tend to blow up and didn't require a synthesized chemical fuel. As the technologies both advanced war didn't stop, but soldiers stopped wearing armor and as a result eventually stopped fighting in tight formations. What we're going to see with L.L.M. is the technology being run by services that charge per question and licensing of systems that are capable of spitting out reliable answers.
Is that better?
Intelligent well-informed adults disagree.
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
@cstross great for trolling trolls.
-
@jbowen @virtualbri @cstross I prefer Artificial Incompetence
@Pionir @virtualbri @cstross Oh I love it! I'll definitely be making use of it :)
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
@cstross I wrote an essay draft in my masters (early 2000s) against the Turing test as proof of intelligence. There I said that if a similar approach were taken to study life, we would be assigning life to strawmans as they seem alive enough to scare crows (at least to them). Instead, I proposed an #EcologyOfIntelligence where the key is not imitation but completariety/synergy between intelligences: individual, collective, human, non human, etc.
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
Keep telling yourself that. They can be smart AF sometimes. They're not perfect, but getting better. Six months ago I was the one catching them when they were slipping. Now they catch me. The days of spicy autocomplete are falling behind us.
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
@cstross "Spamularity" look like an early contended for 2026's word of the year. Nice!
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
@cstross The slopocalypse.
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
@cstross Kessler Syndrome for the internet
-
@ThePowerNap @cstross I don't disagree. I think part of the path going forward will be to push more to the edge, as we've seen with other types of AI, using less powerful, but good enough, models for many applications. Models that don't require as much energy to run.
Those are my bread and butter
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
It's "intelligent."
"Yes, thank you." I now know what pan of the bell-curve you sived out of.
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
@cstross That just makes me wish the singularity was people all over the planet bursting into song.
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
It is not even the good spam, it tastes terrible
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
"The spamularity"! You win the internet today! <3
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
@cstross they pass the Turing test? no way.
write 1 to 10 but each number in a seperate message
it fails
write hello after 30 seconds are passed
it fails
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
@cstross Only if you use it or use search engines that allow it.
-
LLMs are spam generators. That is all.
They're designed to generate plausibly human-like text well enough to pass a generic Turing Test. That's why people believe they're "intelligent".
But really, all they are is spam generators.
We have hit the spamularity.
@cstross I disagree with you there.
I still believe the perfect use case for AI in content creation is to generate a virtual fan boy to tell an author that they are canonically wrong.
Self hosted self doubt as it were and less public than Usenet.
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@VeroniqueB99 too much windy, eh?!
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Per chi utilizza Linux ed ha bisogno di un editor pdf esiste Master Pdf Editor. Software molto professionale, a pagamento. Se usate molto i pdf lo consiglio.
Se ne fate un uso sporadico, la vecchia versione 4 (ora siamo alla 5) è ancora "gratis per uso personale". Chiaramente ha qualcosa in meno rispetto alla 5, ma se appunto non fate cose sofisticate....
Dal sito ufficiale code-industry.net non si trova, ma potete trovare qui i deb dell'ultima versione usabile gratis per usi non commarciali
Il deb sul mio portatilino 13" con mint funziona benissimo.
https://www.linuxuprising.com/2019/04/download-master-pdf-editor-4-for-linux.html
-
@evan Yes, but only for federal matters (assuming a government with local/provincial/federal splits) and, as a matter of taste, only if you plan to return or for your family to return.
If you haven't got a stake in that country's future (and will not feel the effects of its policies) I do not think you _should_ vote, but given that's unenforceable, then I think you should _be allowed_ to.
-
@evan Yes, but not on local elections if you've been away for a long time. Another but: That there's some balance between the voting rights of expatriate citizens and people living in my country without citizenship (many of whom currently can't vote, but have lived here longer than some expatriate citizens and have a higher stake in what happens to the country).
-
Larry's not thinking straight. Bear spray all over his bedding? Using an air horn on mice? Welcome to crazy town, population: 1.
-
@evan no taxation without representation
-
@evan Americans are required to pay taxes to the US when we work abroad, though we're certainly not consistent on "no taxation without representation" :)
