221–230 of 571 posts
I wonder where the balance of “Actual time saved for me” vs “Everyone else's time wasted” lies in this technological “revolution”.
I wonder where the balance of “Actual time saved for me” vs “Everyone else's time wasted” lies in this technological “revolution”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never seen an AI meeting summary that was useful or sufficient in explaining what happened in the meeting. I have no idea what people use them for other than as a status signal
Why do people want to signal their low status?
I’m just afraid this kind of types are the future people who get promoted.
> The reporter was banned and now it looks like he has removed his account. I'm wondering (sadly) if this is a kind of defense-prodding phishing similar to the XZ utils hack, curl is a pretty fundamental utility. Similar to 419 scams, it tests the gullibility, response time/workload of the team, etc. We have an AI DDoS problem here, which may need a completely new pathway for PRs or something. Maybe Nostr based so PR…
They have that uncanny thing where yes it's on topic, but also not how a human would likely ask exactly AND they always let slip in just a hint of human drama that really draws in other users...
They almost never respond to comments, when they do it's pretty clear they're AI (much like the response in this story).
I've unsubscribed from a good half dozen subs in the past few months because of it.
Crazy how he doubled down by just pasting badger's answer into Chat and submitting the (hilariously obvious AI) reply: > Thanks for the quick review. You’re right — my attached PoC does not exercise libcurl and therefore does not demonstrate a cURL bug. I retract the cookie overflow claim and apologize for the noise. Please close this report as invalid. If helpful, I can follow up separately with a minimal C reproduc…
This reads as an AI generated response as well with the; "thanks", "you're right", flawless grammar, and plenty of technical references.
Or faking generated content into real one.
I wonder where the balance of “Actual time saved for me” vs “Everyone else's time wasted” lies in this technological “revolution”.
Why not verify these reports using LLMs first?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This resonates a lot with some observations I drafted last week about "AI Slop" at the workplace. Overall, people are making a net-negative contribution by not having a sense of when to review/filter the responses generated by AI tools, because either (i) someone else is required to make that additional effort, or (ii) the problem is not solved properly. This sounds similar to a few patterns I noted - The average len…
I have never seen an AI meeting summary that was useful or sufficient in explaining what happened in the meeting. I have no idea what people use them for other than as a status signal
I wonder where the balance of “Actual time saved for me” vs “Everyone else's time wasted” lies in this technological “revolution”.
You're doing it wrong: You should just feed other peoples AI-generated responses into your own AI tools and let the tool answer for you! The loop is then closed, no human time wasted, and the only effect is wasted energy to run the AI tools. It's the perfect business model to turn energy into money.
They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.
Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."
"That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"
Crazy how he doubled down by just pasting badger's answer into Chat and submitting the (hilariously obvious AI) reply: > Thanks for the quick review. You’re right — my attached PoC does not exercise libcurl and therefore does not demonstrate a cURL bug. I retract the cookie overflow claim and apologize for the noise. Please close this report as invalid. If helpful, I can follow up separately with a minimal C reproduc…
Is it that crazy? He's doing exactly what the AI boosters have told him to do. Like, do LLMs have actual applications? Yes. By virtue of using one, are you by definition a lazy know-nothing? No. Are they seemingly quite purpose-built for lazy know-nothings to help them bullshit through technical roles? Yeah, kinda. In my mind this is this tech working exactly as intended. From the beginning the various companies have…
The usefulness of LLMs for me, in the end, is their ability to execute classic NLP tasks, so I can incorporate a call for them in programs to do useful stuff that would be hard to do otherwise when dealing with natural language.
But, a lot of times, people try to make LLMs do things that they can only simulate doing, or doing by analogy. And this is where things start getting hairy. When people start believing LLMs can do things they can't do really.
Ask an LLM to extract features from a bunch of natural language inputs, and probably it will do a pretty good job in most domains, as long as you're not doing anything exotic and novel enough to not being sufficiently represented in the training data. It will be able to output a nice JSON with nice values for those features, and it will be mostly correct. It will be great for aggregate use, but a bit riskier for you to depend on the LLM evaluation for individual instances.
But then, people ignore this, and start asking on their prompts for the LLM to add to their output confidence scores. Well. LLMs CAN'T TRULY EVALUATE the fitness of their output for any imaginable criteria, at least not with the kind of precision a numeric score implies. They absolutely can't do it by themselves, even if sometimes they seem to be able to. If you need to trust it, you'd better have some external mechanism to validate it.