Most people do not read the article link that’s posted. So I put an AI summary of the link as a comment, but as a spoiler so if you don’t want to engage with it you don’t have to and also the full article so people can more accessibly read the article. Also as a spoiler so it doesn’t take up a full page of a comment. It got removed by a mod as AI slop.
I could use AI on a headline and you would never know the difference. I could just say it’s my own summary also probably wouldn’t know the difference. Punishing people for being transparent about using LLMs who are not forcing the reader to engage with them is a net positive and a good practice to teach. The opposite is people still use them and just pretend they aren’t.
So the opposite effect is the normalization of it hiding it plain sight. I would way rather promote honesty and allowing people the option to disengage.
this is just the argument libertarians use for why you can’t ever regulate anything? this is not a free-speech radical forum. we’re not making market solutions for content here. in the same vein in which we both have an automatic slur filter, remove blatant racism, and attempt to weed out subtle racism, the solution isn’t normalizing the open racism–the solution is stamping it out with an iron fist whenever it’s caught. yes–things slip through the cracks, it’s imperfect–but it’s infinitely better than Twitter despite its imperfections, and it wards away the people who are incentivized by its normalization. I would personally like this site to strive to be a space free from this slop. There are numerous ethical, labor, environmental and health issues with its normalization and usage, and I’d like to be in a space carved away from indulgence in it in an open and unabashed manner. I feel uncomfortable with the encouragement of usage or reliance on it in any capacity or degree of separation, especially systematically. Again:
Comparing using an llm to racism and other forms of bigotry is def a thing to do.
hey even though I’ve emphasized it again, you still haven’t responded to my last point. i have to ask:
In this instance one could. I was using my example as an example not as one scenario to pick apart.
The point is that some people hate AI and don’t want to see it. Other people are going to use it. Asking people to put barriers like we do with content warnings seemed like a good compromise, but I guess most of you see LLMs on the same level as outward bigotry, which is so mind boggling to me I don’t really care to engage in the nonsense.
>springboards with a real example i should be able to do this rule-breaking thing because i’m honest about it and it’s for good reasons
>okay, here’s what you could do in this real example to not do that and still fulfill those good reasons
>here’s how you can ignore how i’m doing that
>no, you shouldn’t be doing that, we’re not going to allow it and we’ll keep enforcing it
>if you don’t allow it, everyone else is going to do it, secretly, so allow it if we’re open about it
>here is a real example of something we don’t allow and how we enforce it and that strategy seems to work better
>why are you comparing my thing to that really bad thing
>hey, you still haven’t engaged with my first point, here’s how not to do that, can you do that
>actually this is a broader point for hypothetical situations on principle (validating llm usage [cool, good, fine])
Except the main point was referenced in the original post.
I thought this is the area of the site we discuss rules. Guess it was just a space to point at the rule and tell me what I should be doing. And then use ad hominem to make yourself feel more right about the rules. Notes taken.
Hahahaha that’s so funny. Here’s this thing that is outward bigotry vs a thing some of don’t like. Yeah I wonder if there’s a difference. there’s other things certain people don’t like but yet you only put a content warning around those things it’s almost like it matters what the thing is for it to get a content warning vs removed by mod.
which we’re not allowing on this forum. we’re not free-speech radicals, this is a site that embodies a politic. we have real political stances which we enforce as a general standard of conduct here based on broader consensus among ourselves. we’re also taking an iron fist to, say, suggestions that forceful imposition of “western values” is the solution to reactionary tendencies in peripheral countries–an idea that a notable amount of self-identified ‘progressives’ support, but we don’t tolerate on this forum. you’re talking about it as if LLMs are in an apolitical vacuum and don’t exacerbate real labor problems and real environmental problems and real exploitation around the world.
this isn’t a
you have iphone yet you exist situation–you are making a conscious choice to use it and you can stop at any time. it is a service. it provides no real value that cannot be filled with human thought. if we find that real value, then it merely has that and none more. it is a service that we have lived without until 2022, and–likely–a plurality, if not majority, continue to do as such. it is built on the non-consensual theft of the labor of all who have been preserved on the internet and is maintained by exploitation of the poor in the periphery. it is being used as justification to shepherd in draconian natsec clamps and chauvinist trade policies, and its use has festered a notable acceleration of environmental damage due to its inefficiencies and compute power necessary. the development of it is bankrolled by individuals that seek to use it as a springboard to have a final cutting of ties with the rest of humanity from their profit mode. it is notoriously unreliable and has an entire industry-established term for its tendency for misinformation. consistent usage of it results in the degradation/atrophying of internal processing, prior-held skills, and critical thinking (and once again, to note w/rt this, it has notoriously unreliable output) due to said functions being outsourced to it over time. it also fucking sucks at writing and its output is annoying to read when viewed by anyone who has a functional internal metric for it, no matter if they do detect its ‘author.’ its use is not mandated neither by broader consensus among the general population nor literally mandated in any capacity. just because you personally deem these acceptable doesn’t mean we have to tolerate you nor any other subjecting us to it.
your arguments seem to be coming from the fact that you cannot comprehend the disconnect between your position and the site’s position here, but we are not changing the site’s position merely because you refuse to engage with the multitude of points people are bringing up and just want it that way. tough shit, I guess.
GOOD fuckin post
I wonder if there’s a difference between that and outward bigotry. Nope must be on the exact same level. If you truly believe they were on the same level wouldn’t you ban all users who admit to using LLMs? Because I would hope you would ban anyone who admits to bigotry and not just remove their comment.
Nobody’s going to read the summary, human or AI, because nobody reads in this website. At best, people glance at the headline.
Since nobody reads anyways, saying it’s done by AI just normalizes AI for no gain whatsoever.
The real solution is to not bother writing a summary, and if you want to write a summary that nobody will read, at least do it without AI for the sake of not normalizing AI.
The reason I wanted to use them is because they help me when people post them, but I guess I’m nobody. Ah well.
You are just wasting your time. The only person who thinks it’s a good idea is you. Nobody else here thinks it’s a good idea. At this point, your options are to either revisit using AI to write summaries or do it anyways but not say so.
It would be better if you didn’t claim to speak for everyone, but yet you continue.
By “here,” I mean this entire post that only you the OP think is a good idea. Or is there any comment that I missed?
People who think using AI for article summaries is good:
You
People who think using AI for article summaries is trash:
WhyEssEff
sgtlion (sgtlion only said AI is good for coding and debugging and said that AI is 90% slop)
DoiDoi
MiraculousMM
RotundLadSloopUnion
Leon_Grotsky
imogen_underscore
Infamousblt
blunder
Me
People who are asking clarifying questions:
glans
People who are shitposting:
Lemmygradwontallowme
Do you dispute with how I’m characterizing their opinion on using AI for article summaries?