@hume_lemmy@lemmy.ca

comments

• Quoting the president’s actual words is unauthorized reproduction!

  on Republican bill would order ISPs, DNS providers, and VPNs to block piracy sites in c/technology@lemmy.world · 5d ago

• Move zig

  For great justice

  on Bun 1.4 Rust rewrite is not looking good • Tero Piirainen in c/technology@lemmy.world · 3 Sep 2026

• But the profittsssssssssssss

  on Data centers’ ‘oh s--t’ moment in c/technology@lemmy.world · 27 Aug 2026

• He doesn’t deserve the same choice of ending as Kurt.

  on uBlock Origin Is Giving Up the Fight to Keep Ads Off Facebook in c/technology@lemmy.world · 12 Aug 2026

• The lyrics are in C!

  on Amid RAM price hikes, Microsoft reportedly raises Windows license cost, forcing OEMs to hike prices even further on hardware in c/technology@lemmy.world · 11 Aug 2026

• I can deal with an ai being wrong because an ai is not malicious. It may be programmed a way but it’s not directly trying to screw me.

  You’re right, but it’s working with data from people who might be, and because it cooks it all down you can’t be sure of the origins of that data. There’s an entire industry popping up now to “lean” AI answers in “approved” directions. It’s SEO optimization, for AI answers.

  I treat “AI” like an overhyped, incredibly-energy-inefficient search engine. I check every citation it makes, every time. Sometimes this is better than a straight search, sometimes it’s not. But the main thing is that EVERY result is treated as untrustworthy by default. If a boring search engine result persistently sent me to the same site written by a human, and I found the results worthwhile, that site (and the responsible human) would build trust over time and I’d do less checking. But with AI you’re constantly dealing with the “data slurry”, so no trust is (or ever should be) built. You’re starting from scratch, every time.

  on The AI Slop Backlash Is Actually Having an Impact. Platforms are finally recognizing that people don’t want to consume AI slop. in c/technology@lemmy.world · 11 Aug 2026

• thinking

  See, this is where I think you’re wrong. There’s no thinking going on. It’s a probability analysis based on word adjacency in a text dataset, with a little bit of $RND thrown in. If you ask the same question multiple times, you’ll get different answers because of the presence of the random seed. If you ask it why chocolate coated shrimp is a bad idea, it’s not going to answer based on culinary training saying that those two flavour profiles don’t belong together, it’s going to say no because some other crazy person actually tried it and that data made it into the dataset. (And yes, someone did, I checked…)

  on The AI Slop Backlash Is Actually Having an Impact. Platforms are finally recognizing that people don’t want to consume AI slop. in c/technology@lemmy.world · 11 Aug 2026

• Funny you should use that example, because a farmer destroyed twenty five acres of food crops by poisoning them because an AI told him to (thankfully killing the plants before they could end up on someone’s plate…)

  BTW, not to pick on you, but it’s “recipes”, not “recepies”.

  on The AI Slop Backlash Is Actually Having an Impact. Platforms are finally recognizing that people don’t want to consume AI slop. in c/technology@lemmy.world · 11 Aug 2026

• Okay, you’re using it was a random number generator and search engine. That’s fine. I’d be concerned if someone used it to create recipes… and for the record, I’d be just as distrustful of a person who has never cooked in their lives suggesting recipe modifications, too.

  on The AI Slop Backlash Is Actually Having an Impact. Platforms are finally recognizing that people don’t want to consume AI slop. in c/technology@lemmy.world · 11 Aug 2026

• Is it suggesting recipes it found, or recipes it “created”? It’s an important distinction.

  on The AI Slop Backlash Is Actually Having an Impact. Platforms are finally recognizing that people don’t want to consume AI slop. in c/technology@lemmy.world · 11 Aug 2026