1276
Grok, even in its manipulated state, continues to emphasize the facts. And that's hurting the feelings of a lot of Twitter users. (discuss.online)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://xcancel.com/grok/status/1941506767046967650#m

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

A machine by definition can't believe in or stand by literally anything it can only parrot a version of what it's exposed to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I would accuse you of being an LLM for being so literal, but I think LLMs are better at analyzing metaphor than you appear to be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Ad hominem, neat.

    So let's hear it, what was your metaphor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The metaphor was the part you were being a pedant about.

    the LLMs actually stand by their principles much better than fascists

    If the audience knows how LLMs work internally, then they know they don't have "loyalty," just stochastic processes. If the audience didn't know that, your pithy "aktually that's incorrect" wouldn't teach them anything correct, but would cause confusion because it sounds like you're denying the metaphor.

    Also, it's not an ad hominem to say that you are acting like an LLM: with poor reading comprehension and an overly-literal interpretation. That's an observation of your unproductive behavior. An ad hominem would be insulting you or name-calling with unrelated info, such as calling you "stupid like an LLM."

    It isn't a logical fallacy to be called out on your bullshit, even if it hurts your feelings.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    It's not a pithy response, how does a program stand by anything in an ideological sense? They can't and your previous definition of fascism is an ideological one that requires morality and freedom of choice. You may as well say that ink well over yonder is a fascist, it's the same level of sentience and intent which is lemme see... None.

    That's a personal insult with no actual argument, that's ad hominem by definition. For reference:

    marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

    It's not overly literal you're entire argument is predicted on some level of intent and sentience which is not currently possible in any machine.

    Ed: you'd have a point about that of you actually made an argument but you didn't, you did a drive by insult and ran away for the night. Grow up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The metaphor is comparing the idea of loyalty, a concept vitally important to the ideology of fascism, with the LLM trait of consistency. An LLM is highly consistent, so much so that common patterns in its output can be used to spot generated artifacts. However it is not "loyal" because loyalty is about being inconsistent in one's "beliefs" (expressed statements of knowledge) but consistent to a moment-to-moment truth defined by an authority figure.

    You got insulted because you're debating in a way that seems catered towards "winning" an internet argument instead of trying to understand what WoodScientist was saying: that a fascist LLM would be difficult because it would require constant retraining to keep up with the ever-shifting fascist narrative. You've never even addressed this point, just repeatedly doubled down that because he said "loyalty" instead of "responding in line with the currert beliefs of the ruling party which change on a daily basis" that the entire argument is invalid and therefore it's "easy to train a reactionary LLM." You also keep confusing reactionary and fascist.

    And I neither did a "drive by insult" nor did I "run away into the night." Though i will now rather than continue wasting my time on this. just came back to correct you yet again, and offer an actual ad hominem for you to compare against.

    Fuck off, moron.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Loyalty is 100% not a vital part of fascism I know of no definition that includes loyalty at all and in fact your argument and the historic argument that fascists aren't serious only goes against your loyalty argument.

    No you insulted me because you wanted to, don't victim blame boss. You did it because it felt good.

    You literally made no argument, only provided insult and then ran away for a day.

    And again to aggression and insults because you know you're in fact the "uhm acktually that's reactionary ideology not fascism" got, not me. We get it you read three body, no need to try to shoehorn that bullshit into conversations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent