sp3tr4l

joined 7 months ago
[–] sp3tr4l 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It was that, and they had the audacity to have a supporting cast of basically hyper charged versions of people who were protesting against the Vietnam War and Segregation in our universe, who were basically terrorists/resistance fighters in their timeline.

You know, socialists, communists, minority races, women.

[–] sp3tr4l 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Looks at transdimensional timeline watch

Hour and minute hands are now bent at 90 degree angles, and mirrored.

God damnit.

[–] sp3tr4l 2 points 3 days ago

All in due time, thanks for the well wishes =D

[–] sp3tr4l 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

With basic search, it is extremely obvious that that feature does not exist.

With conversational search, the search itself gaslights you into believing it has this feature, as it understands how to syntactically parse the question, and then answers it confidently with a wrong answer.

I would much rather buy a car that cannot fly, knowing it cannot fly, than a car that literally talks to you and tells you it can fly, and sometimes manages to glide a bit, but also randomly nose dives into the ground whilst airborne.

[–] sp3tr4l 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It is not that it responded "Sorry, I cannot find anything like what you described, here are some things that are pretty close."

It affirmatively said "No, no such things as you describe exist, here are some things that are pretty close."

There's a huge difference between a coworker saying "Dang man, I dunno, I can't find a thing like that." and "No, nothing like that exists, closest to it is x y z,"

The former is honest. The latter is confidently incorrect.

Combine that with "Wait what about gamma?"

And the former is still honest, and the latter, who now describes gamma in great detail and how it meets my requirements, is now an obvious liar, after telling me that nothing like that exists.

If I now know I am dealing with a dishonest interlocutor, now I am forced to consider tricking it into being homest.

Or, if I am less informed or more naive, I might just, you know, believe it the first time.

A standard search engine that is not formatted to resemble talking to a person does not prompt a user to expect it to act like a person, and thus does not suffer from this problem.

If you don't find what you're looking for, all that means is you did not find it.

If you are told that no such thing exists, a lot of people are going to believe that no such thing exists.

That is typically called spreading disinformation, when the actor knows what they are claiming is false.

Its worse than unhelpful, it actively spreads lies.

...

Anyway, I'm sorry that you don't see humor in multi billion dollar technology failing at achieving its purported abilities, I laugh all the time at poorly designed products, systems, things.

...

Finally, I did not use the phrase in contention in my original post.

I used it in my response to you, specifically and only within a single sentence which revolved around incompetent executives.

...

It appears that reading comprehension is not your strong suit, maybe you can ask Gemini about how to improve it.

Err, well, maybe don't do that.

[–] sp3tr4l 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I successfully ghosted mine to the point that they probably think I am dead.

Also moved many hundreds of miles away lol.

[–] sp3tr4l 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

But this is better than previous implementations of search, because it gives you discrete applicable answers rather than a collection of dubiously associated web links.

Except for when you ask it to determine if a thing exists by describing its properties, and then it says no such thing exists while providing a discrete response explaining in detail how there are things that have some, but not all of those properties...

... And then when you ask it specifically about a thing you already know about that has all those properties, it tells you about how it does exist and describes it in detail.

What is the point of a 'conversational search engine' if it cannot help you find information unless you already know about said information?!

The whole, entire point of formatting it into a conversational format is to trick people into thinking they are talking to an expert, an archivist with encyclopedaeic knowledge, who will give them accurate answers.

Yet it gatekeeps information that it does have access to but omits.

The format of providing a bunch of likely related links to a query is a format much more reminiscent of doing actual research, with no impression that you will immediately find what you want right away, that this is a tool to aide you in your research process.

This is only an improvement if you want to further unteach people how to do actual research and critical thinking.

[–] sp3tr4l 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

You original comment is posted under mine.

I am going to assume you are responding to that.

... I wasn't trying to trick it.

I was trying to use it.

This is relevant to my more recent reply to you... because it is an anecdotal example of how broadly useless this technology is.

...

I wasn't aware the purpose of this joke meme thread was to act as a policy workshop to determine an actionable media campaign aimed at generating mass awareness of the economic downsides of LLMs, which wouldn't fucking work anyway because LLMs are being pushed by a class of wealthy people who do not fucking care what the masses think, and have essentially zero reason at all to change their course of action.

What, we're going to boycott the entire tech industry?

Vote them out of office?

These people are on video, on record saying basically, 'eh, we're not gonna save the climate, not happening, might as well burn it all down even harder, even faster, for a tiny percentage chance our overcomplicated autocomplete algorithm magically figures out how to fix everything afterward'.

...

And yes, I very intentionally used the phrase 'understand how computers actually work' to infantilize and demean corporate executives.

Because they are narcissistic priveleged sociopaths who are almost never qualified, almost always make idiotic decisions that will only benefit themselves and an increasingly shrinking number of people at the expense of the vast majority of people who know more and work harder than they do, and who often respond like children having temper tantrums when they are justly criticized.

Again, in the context of a joke meme thread.

Please get off your high horse, or at least ride it over to a trough of water if you want a reasonable place to try to convince it to drink in the manner in which you prefer.

[–] sp3tr4l 0 points 3 days ago

Whooo boy, let me introduce you to gaming and popular culture 'journalism', where these 'journalists' do almost nothing other than write op eds about the vibes they're getting from Twitter in the past 48 hrs.

[–] sp3tr4l 3 points 3 days ago

Ah, the battered domestic partner business model.

[–] sp3tr4l 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

Probably it keeps getting rehashed because people who actually understand how computers work are extremely angry and horrified that basically every idiot executive believes the hype and then asks their underlings to inplement it, and will then blame them for doing what they asked them to do when it turns out their idea was really, unimaginably stupid, but idiot executive gets golden parachute and software person gets fired.

That, and/or the widespread proliferation of this bullshit is making stupid people more stupid, and just making more people stupid in general.

Or how like all the money and energy spent on this is actively murdering the environment and dooming the vast majority of our species, when it could be put toward building affordable housing or renovating crumbling infrastructure.

Don't worry, if we keep throwing exponential increasing amounts of effort at the thing with exponentially diminishing returns, eventually it'll become God!

[–] sp3tr4l 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Its a perfect encapsulation of the corpo mindset:

Whatever I do is profound, meaningful, with endless possibilities for future greatness...

... even though I'm just talking out of my ass 99% of the time...

... and if you have the audacity, the nerve, to have a completely normal reaction when you determine that that is what I am doing, pshaw, how uncouth, I won't stand for your abuse!

...

They've done it. They've made a talking (not thinking) machine in their own image.

And it was not good.

You start a conversation you can't even finish it You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed Say something once, why say it again?

Psycho Killer Qu'est-ce que c'est

view more: ‹ prev next ›