AI and social media are both shit and are both addictive.
But I think one reason for the AI-hate on social media is that the people who spend hours a day talking to chatbots and generating images, those people are not also spending hours a day on social media.
You pick up your phone for no reason. What do you open? What’s your source of shitty low-quality conversation? If it’s a chatbot it’s probably not a forum, and as these addictions are deepen, the AI users stop voicing their opinions online because they’re busy talking to 1s and 0s
Simply put, something that is incapable of telling the truth is also incapable of lying. It’s a misnomer to call it a lie. It’s a misnomer to say that any coincidentally factual information it provides is also truth.
It’s exactly how the ‘AI’ shills were able to repackage ‘hallucination’ as something that only ‘bad’‘AI’ does, or ‘AI’ does only some of the time.
In reality everything it spits out is hallucination whether it coincides with reality or not. There is no factual valence to its output, therefore no lie detected.
I agree with you that calling it the lying machine does appear mimic the lines from LLM shills who pose as sceptics or cautious, i.e. it could be seen as credence to the underlying conceit that the LLM is, on some level, either factoring in truthfulness into its calculations, and/or that something that resembles the truth is ipso facto the truth.
It does feel a bit like semantics, but, yeah.
Certainly Leroy sees it as simply semantics, but I truly and deeply believe that it is much deeper than a semantic argument, it boils down to a complete misunderstanding of epistemology and a complete lack of formalized classical metaphysical philosophy training existing among these tech people.
Maybe they have read some Bethem or Nietzsche (although, let’s be frank, as much of a proto-fascist nut job Nietzsche was, it is extremely unlikely these fuckheads have even read more than a single book, by him, if that), but it is extremely apparent that these people either a) have absolute no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the nature of intelligence and epistemology or b) are purposefully lying about these well examined and well defined concepts within both classical philosophical or even modernist communications theory, or c) Actually follow a complete post-modernist understanding of ‘intelligence’ that is, imo, often extremely vaguely defined.
And honestly in all likelyhood it is a combination of all three of these or possibly even more elements.
My point is that boiling it down to saying “It is a lying machine”, is extremely reductive and ultimately fails to communicate HOW and WHY these things are bad.