this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
47 points (94.3% liked)

Technology

59204 readers
2746 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You would call what they said bullshit though.

Intent is irrelevant. Bullshit is bullshit.

[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Depends which definition of bullshit you use, I guess.

Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care whether what they say is true or false.

Wiki

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

the bullshitter doesn't care whether what they say is true or false.

That's another way to say "intent is irrelevant".

It's also effectively the perfect definition of LLM output. Content for the sole purpose of looking the part with absolutely no consideration for reality.

[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

..bullshit is speech intended to persuade..

Quoting out of context is not going to score you any points

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It is intended (by the designer) to persuade. It's intended to persuade you that it's something a human would say.

Ignoring that you're trying to claim one dude's definition of bullshit as the law, that one dude's definition is an exact flawless match for what LLMs are.

[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It is intended (by the designer) to persuade.

According to you, I presume? Or can you back that up somehow?

LLMs were developed to simulate human-like understanding and generation of language. They're called large language models for a reason.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, they weren't. There was never at any point any theoretical possibility that an LLM would resemble understanding in any way.

[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

That's why they simulate it. Just like I said.

Look, there's no point going any further with this. You just keep making baseless claims without any explanation or even attempt to try and convince me otherwise. When called out, you ignore it and move on. I'm not interested in discussions where people are just talking past each other while disregarding everything said in the previous messages. Take care now.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

They don't simulate anything.

LLMs are objectively bullshit. You're the one who went way down the train trying to act like the exact correct word wasn't fair, and I responded to the only part of any of your posts that wasn't outright word salad nonsense.