At least the internet had broad utility, just wasn’t ready in 1999 to support e-commerce on that scale. It is now. I can’t imagine a future where LLMs are similar. Even a theoretically perfect LLM is not like, actually knowledgeable.

She gets booed, regroups, then says “two years ago AI wasn’t a part of our lives” and then gets cheered for it 🤣

Radio to television is generous, IMO. LLMs aren’t a path to AGI or even particularly useful to most people.

Thanks I just assumed everyone on Lemmy donates to 404. Someone else posted the video in this community too. Pretty hilarious.

Oh I thought you were just joking around so I was too. Yes it would suck to be unemployed.

I have to assume workplace burned down makes one eligible for unemployment…

If I could trade in all my unplayed games I could afford a hundred Steam Machines.

ok

Now, working on that angle, we don’t really want to be associated with a randy penguin (well, we do, but it’s not politic, so we won’t)

Classic Linus.

Thanks for clarifying!

reducing the probability of the top weighted words the LLM chooses from

My feeling is that a writer who adjusts their word choice to present a particular way is definitionally behaving inauthentically. I would characterize such writing as “slop” even if it’s human made, because it was still heavily influenced by how LLMs “write”.

Put another way- I don’t believe that “not worrying about appearing as an LLM” is “giving up”, I think it’s a recognition that an LLM is not capable of fighting you in the first place. If you, a creative soul, allow fear of “coming off a certain way” (ANY way) to determine how you write, you have already lost.

I thought they invest any surplus into government debt securities?

As for Lemmy, there are many articles from lesser known sources that get positive attention here that seem to use AI but do not get removed

Well, Lemmy is not one thing, your instance for example is explicitly in favor of boosting AI-generated content. So that behavior is what I would expect if I had an account there. I personally wouldn’t go there expecting to see links to human-made content.

I don’t believe it’s possible for human writers to write both authentically and also in a way that is coded to verify they are human (as the article discusses) that an LLM couldn’t eventually come to replicate. I also don’t believe it’s possible for an LLM to write from their unique perspective. Therefore, I believe the strongest method for verifying ones own human-ness is to write from one’s own unique perspective.

signalling humanity in a way that resists automated systems

I think I would understand your perspective better if you gave an example or two of what signals could be used?

Social security is a bad investment for an individual, but most people are terrible investors if they invest into their future at all. So by giving everyone that baseline, it helps out everyone else, including the rich. And is therefore a fantastic investment for everyone.

Clever! The rare actually useful LLM!

We need to create /c/cornbread only then can we overtake Reddit

Hah, that’s a great example. The Room is nothing if not interesting!

That’s because LLMs cannot be interesting, even something poorly written can be interesting if it was written from a human perspective.

Yep, or heck- write really badly! It can’t do that either!

If you’re reading, you want to determine whether what you are reading is a waste of your time as quickly as possible.

I have honestly not heard of this behavior, and I myself certainly don’t do this. I wouldn’t determine “what’s worth reading” in the middle of reading, but well before I start. For example, if a piece is published somewhere I trust, or a friend recommended it, or say, it was posted in a Lemmy community known to have good moderation.

Like I said I understand why an artist would have a desire to present as authentic, but that is an unwinnable game because:

1. The AI is also “trying to present as authentic” (any automated filtering system is beatable)
2. Adjusting one’s behavior so as to appear a particular way is definitionally inauthentic.