This is not moving the goalposts. This is identifying who is gaining from this binary view. And it isn't the worker, it isn't the web... So who is gaining from it?
Which would be somewhat clear if people would read instead of jumping into conclusions.
In the end I’m anti whatever these big companies with their debt hiding shit are trying to accomplish.
Holy mother, tears in my eyes reading this.
I hope this answer your question.
Yeah, thanks for the comment and reading the post.
Gosh please no xD
If I could I wouldn't have entered this shit pool.
I meant the title here on Lemmy [...]
Here on the piefed (or lemmy how you prefer), I'm using the LLM usage and asking the quesiton of: "it's ok to call anything LLM touched as slop", and more important, who benefits from this view.
(Also, I don’t think inventing definitions for words is of any help. LLMs are LLMs. Automation is automation. And machines are machines, less so entities with agency or “intelligence”.)
Inventing? I think slop right now is binary and means a low level of quality. The problem is, if LLM touches anything, it's getting the tag of slop. And (ignoring the other problems of the LLM), I don't think that just by touching it, it get slop immediately.
I'm not denying the other issues with LLM, and I'm fairly critical and vocal about it.
But calling everything slop isn't helping, worse it's benefiting a very small group of people.
Never saw this problem in this perspective. But considering the world we are, can I be knee-deep then?
Sadly I'm noticing this.
I imagined that, since this is a federated group, people would be more interested in discussing, or at least reading each other's essay. But looks like I was wrong.
"I can see my code from 3 years ago, was already slop!"
Funny how often I can see that people haven't read a single phrase in the post. And are probably just going by the headings and title.
“NoT eVeYtHiNg Ai Is SlOp”
Did you fully read the blog post? Because your critic is somewhat far from the discussion on the post.
“will you still think I’m cool if I use AI???”
That's is not the case, and if you read the post I'll strongly discuss about the usage and quality and how heavy usage decrease quality.
Which title? Because, from what I can see I did use LLM on this. And in the text I was trying to avoid the usage of the LLM as AI and AI as LLM, but I may have left a few wrong uses....
Edited since the original comment was edited.
Kinda wrong title, then? So don’t use chatbots, do use background removal, markov chains and text to speech and speech to text? I’d agree with that…
Not sure, some of the tools fits in the AI bucket, some may not. Still I did try my best in the post to avoid the usage of LLM as AI and also AI as LLM. But I may have left some wrong usage.
Still, none of that has anything to do with large language models. [...]
But they have with automation and AI.
But this is automation. And some tools use AI, not LLM.
Another point that we need to be better. We need to call the tool LLM, not AI. Like I said in the post, spellchecker is a kind of AI, a decision tree is a kind of AI, and so on.
[...] avoid having humans do any of that work [...]
You are stepping to close to the S word, the only word that makes the capitalism fear. So are you sure that you want to pull this topic on this community?
Funny that I'm seeing negative view on this post, and it's also closer to what I've found in the wild. Often (in special outside of the web/rest api world), the LLM fails far more often, like at least 3 in 10 is pure garbage, while the other 7 is maybe correct, but still needs refactor to be in the shape to use in the codebases that I've.