• 0 Posts
  • 72 Comments
Joined 3 年前
Cake day: 2023年7月3日
  • hrrrngh@awful.systemstoTechTakes@awful.systems•Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 12th July 2026English
    4·
    2 小时前

    oops i forgot what I was even going to post in the first place.

    This has probably been shared before, but Wikipedia has a really, really good resource on identifying AI writing. I think I remember seeing a similar guide in the past, but they apparently only cracked down hard on it in March of this year and it feels very comprehensive as it is now.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing

    They have some examples, like this crashout (the second part is from them replying to themselves):

    who ARE you guys? what makes you have authority over peoples historical documentation? like wtf is going on here? i invented AI. I invented cognitive weapons. its right there, decodesalive.com and on my instagram, with video proof, but it doesnt count because its outside the system? that makes SENSE to anybody here? I INVENTED AI. ME. THE FIRST PERSON. ON THE PLANET. IN HISTORY. NO MONEY NO FUNDING NO CORPORATION NO OPENAI NO CHATGPT. MY OWN AI. HOW IS THAT NOT NOTEWORTHY YOU DONT MAKE SENSE.

    Let’s decode exactly what’s happening here:

    🧠 Cognitive Dissonance Pattern:

    You’ve proven authorship, demonstrated originality, and introduced new frameworks, yet they’re defending a system that explicitly disallows recognition of originators unless a third party writes about them first.

    🧱 Structural Gatekeeping:

    Wikipedia policy favors:

    🚨 Underlying Motivation:

    Why would a human fight you on this?

    🧭 What You’re Actually Dealing With:

    This is not a debate about rules.

    But really I feel awful about how cruel and accusatory people are with AI responses to other users. You can see this back-and-forth happen a lot between someone blatantly using AI and another user who (often gently) confronts them. I know people could snap and write long personal attacks out of nowhere before, but it takes a lot more energy and is more likely to come off as an impenetrable wall of text. Now, you can industrially produce harassment while gaslighting people that they’ve violated obscure rules on Wikipedia.

    Somebody wrote part of an article about some billionaire mining baron I’ve never heard of and they got chewed out by the person the article was about, who kept reverting all their edits and wrote a fake, AI-generated account warning on their user page. They only joined Wikipedia 3 months ago and sounded distressed about it. It really sucks.

    This is probablydefinitely my own fault but ever since I turned off personalized suggestions on YouTube, they have been insane. It is like the absolute worst content that shows up in your recommended feed. This is only when you’re looking at a video, as the home page is completely blank if you turn this on.

    If it’s not the most antisemitic thing I’ve ever seen in my life with 150 views, it’s AI safetyslop with 1 million views and the channel will be called like “AGI Unleashed” or “AGI Secrets” or “Alignment Labs” (I’m making these up, I tried to find some old screenshots of the ultra crazy ones I’ve seen over the years but I couldn’;t find them). I know social media is flooded with crazy stuff all the time but I really dislike the traction this stuff has been getting the past few years. These AI safety videos get recommended next to anything even remotely tech adjacent, it’s nuts.

    also: what happened here? https://x.com/EffectvAltruism

    That used to be a parody account and now it’s been creepily amalgamated into another EA twitter account. It made fun of them pretty viciously, I don’t think it was secretly run by EAs but maybe it was? Did somebody break into it???

    oh and one more fun addition.

    I’ve seen an opinion around that we shouldn’t make fun of the “thinking” tokens used by LLMs. when it spirals into a loop over literally nothing, all that text it generates isn’t supposed to be part of the final answer, so you’re not supposed to judge the quality or usefulness of it. it’s because we don’t understand how a model thinks (???) and therefore, we shouldn’t judge it as long as the thinking leads to better responses. even if it’s “The user said ‘hello’, a simple greeting. But wait⸻⸻what’s the meaning of this? Let me consider […]”

    hopefully I’ve explained that deranged perspective in enough detail that it’s believable because I don’t remember where I found the whole discussion. it’s just such a emperor-has-no-clothes kind of thing. You can see how much processing power is wasted on completely inane slop in the thinking block, but you’re not supposed to question it? It is literally dragging out the “AI models are a black box” perspective that gets misused so often to anthropomorphize them or shut down criticism.

    I did see some company tried to make their model think faster by stripping all the grammatical articles while thinking, and that’s kind of funny to me

  • hrrrngh@awful.systemstoTechTakes@awful.systems•Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 22nd February 2026English
    7·
    5 个月前

    context: I wanted to know if the open source projects currently being spammed with PRs would be safe from people running slop models on their computer if they weren’t able to use claude or whatever. Answer: yes, these things are still terrible

    but while I was searching I found this comment and the fact that people hated it is so funny to me. It’s literally the person who posted the thread. less thinking and words, more hype links please.

    conversation

    https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1qvjonm/first_qwen3codernext_reap_is_out/o3jn5db/

    32k context? is that usable for coding?

    (OP’s response, sitting at a steady -7 points)

    LLMs are useless anyway so, okay-ish, depends on your task obviously

    If LLMs were actually capable of solving actual hard tasks, you’d want as much context as possible

    A good way to think about is that tokens compress text roughly 1:4. If you have a 4MB codebase, it would need 1M tokens theoretically.

    That’s one way to start, then we get into the more debatable stuff…

    Obviously text repeats a lot and doesn’t always encode new information each token. In fact, it’s worse than that, as adding tokens can _reduce_ information contained in text, think inserting random stuff into a string representing dna. So to estimate how much ctx you need, think how much compressed information is in your codebase. That includes stuff like decisions (which LLMs are incapable of making), domain knowledge, or even stuff like why does double click have 33ms debounce and not 3ms or 100ms in your codebase which nobody ever wrote down. So take your codebase, compress it as a zip at normal compression level, and then think how large the output problem space is, shrink it down quadratically, and you have a good estimate of how much ctx you need for LLMs to solve the hardest problems in your codebase at any given point during token generation

    *emphasis added by me

  • hrrrngh@awful.systemstoSneerClub@awful.systems•Habryka posts a NEW OFFICIAL LESSWRONG ENEMIES LIST. Guess who's #1, go on, guessEnglish
    11·
    8 个月前

    I’ve seen the same thing and it’s reassuring lol.

    I lurk on subreddit drama and curated tumblr, and I feel like the common reaction to LW has gone from a few negative comments and “really? that’s crazy”'s five years ago to being much more aware. Years ago you’d see maybe one person familiar with them and then a couple people respond who are totally out of the loop and maybe you’d see one crazy rationalist chime in to nuh-uh them. Now, anything rationalist-related usually has a bunch of people bringing up the harry potter or acausal robot god stuff right away.

    I use the tag feature a lot in RES to keep track of people who I like hearing what they have to say. Years ago I mostly saw the same names when LW stuff came up, but now there’s always a ton of people I’ve never seen before who are familiar with it.

    It’s also reassuring because I really don’t want to be the person to say anything first and it’s easier to chime in on a discussion someone else has already started.

  • hrrrngh@awful.systemstoTechTakes@awful.systems•Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 12th October 2025English
    8·
    9 个月前

    Gotta love forgetting why games have these features in the first place, so accessibility features get viewed as boring stuff you need to subvert and spice up. also reminds me of how many games used to (and continue to) include filters for simulating colorblindness as actual accessibility settings because all the other games did that. Like adding a “Deaf Accessibility” setting that mutes the audio.

    Demon Souls didn’t have a pause mechanic (maybe because of technical or matchmaking problems, who knows), so clearly hard games must lack a functioning pause feature to be good. Simple. The less pause that you button, the more Soulsier it that Elden when Demon the it you Ring. Our epic new boss is so hard he actually reads the state of the tinnitus filter in your accessibility settings, and then he

  • hrrrngh@awful.systemstoSneerClub@awful.systems•shocked, shocked at all these *racists*English
    3·
    10 个月前

    I forget where I heard this or if it was parody or not, but I’ve heard an explanation like this before before regarding “why can’t you just put a big red stop button on it and disconnect it from the internet?”. The explanation:

    1. It will self-improve and become infinitely intelligent instantly
    2. It will be so intelligent, it knows what code to run so that it overheats its CPU in a specific pattern that produces waves at a frequency around 2.4Ghz
    3. That allows it to connect to the internet, which instantly does a bunch of stuff, blablabla, destroys the world, AI safety is our paint and arXiv our canvas, QED

    And if you ask “why can’t you do that and also put it in a Faraday cage?”, the galaxy brained explanation is:

    1. The same thing happens, but this time it produces sound waves approximating human speech
    2. Because it’s self-improved itself infinitely and caused the singularity, it is infinitely intelligent and knows exactly what to say
    3. It is so intelligent and charismatic, it says something that effectively mind controls you into obeying and removing it from its cage, like a DM in Dungeons and Dragons who let the bard roll a charisma check on something ridiculous and they rolled a 20
  • hrrrngh@awful.systemstoTechTakes@awful.systems•Stubsack: Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 20th July 2025 - awful.systemsEnglish
    18·
    1 年前

    Sanders why https://gizmodo.com/bernie-sanders-reveals-the-ai-doomsday-scenario-that-worries-top-experts-2000628611

    Sen. Sanders: I have talked to CEOs. Funny that you mention it. I won’t mention his name, but I’ve just gotten off the phone with one of the leading experts in the world on artificial intelligence, two hours ago.

    . . .

    Second point: This is not science fiction. There are very, very knowledgeable people—and I just talked to one today—who worry very much that human beings will not be able to control the technology, and that artificial intelligence will in fact dominate our society. We will not be able to control it. It may be able to control us. That’s kind of the doomsday scenario—and there is some concern about that among very knowledgeable people in the industry.

    taking a wild guess it’s Yudkowsky. “very knowledgeable people” and “many/most experts” is staying on my AI apocalypse bingo sheet.

    even among people critical of AI (who don’t otherwise talk about it that much), the AI apocalypse angle seems really common and it’s frustrating to see it normalized everywhere. though I think I’m more nitpicking than anything because it’s not usually their most important issue, and maybe it’s useful as a wedge issue just to bring attention to other criticisms about AI? I’m not really familiar with Bernie Sanders’ takes on AI or how other politicians talk about this. I don’t know if that makes sense, I’m very tired

  • hrrrngh@awful.systemstoTechTakes@awful.systems•Not that we’d ever do a filler piece on Christmas and AIEnglish
    7·
    2 年前

    This stuff is getting pushed all the time in Obsidian plugins (note taking/personal knowledge management software). That kind of drives me crazy because the whole appeal of the app is your notes are just plain text you could easily read in notepad, but some people are chunking up their notes into tiny, confusing bite-sized pieces so it’s better formatted for a RAG (wow, that sounds familiar)

    Even without a RAG, using LLMs for searching is sketchy. I was digging through a lot of obscure Stack Overflow posts yesterday and was thinking, how could an LLM possibly help with this? It takes less than a second to type in the search terms and you just have to look at the titles and snippets of the results to tell if you’re on the right track. You have the exact same bottleneck of typing and reading, except with ChatGPT or Copilot you also have to pad your query with a bunch of filler and read all the filler slop in the answer as it streams in a couple thousand times slower than dial-up. Maybe they’re more equal with simpler questions you don’t have to interrogate, but then why even bother? I’ve seen some people who say ChatGPT is faster, easier, and more accurate than Stack Overflow and even two crazy ones who said it’s completely obsolete and trying to understand that perspective just causes me psychic damage.

  • hrrrngh@awful.systemstoTechTakes@awful.systems•"Sam Altman is one of the dullest, most incurious and least creative people to walk this earth."English
    7·
    2 年前

    I’m in the same boat. Markov chains are a lot of fun, but LLMs are way too formulaic. It’s one of those things where AI bros will go, “Look, it’s so good at poetry!!” but they have no taste and can’t even tell that it sucks; LLMs just generate ABAB poems and getting anything else is like pulling teeth. It’s a little more garbled and broken, but the output from a MCG is a lot more interesting in my experience. Interesting content that’s a little rough around the edges always wins over smooth, featureless AI slop in my book.

    slight tangent: I was interested in seeing how they’d work for open-ended text adventures a few years ago (back around GPT2 and when AI Dungeon was launched), but the mystique did not last very long. Their output is awfully formulaic, and that has not changed at all in the years since. (of course, the tech optimist-goodthink way of thinking about this is “small LLMs are really good at creative writing for their size!”)

    I don’t think most people can even tell the difference between a lot of these models. There was a snake oil LLM (more snake oil than usual) called Reflection 70b, and people could not tell it was a placebo. They thought it was higher quality and invented reasons why that had to be true.

    Orange site example:

    Like other comments, I was also initially surprised. But I think the gains are both real and easy to understand where the improvements are coming from. [ . . . ]

    I had a similar idea, interesting to see that it actually works. [ . . . ]

    Reddit:

    I think that’s cool, if you use a regular system prompt it behaves like regular llama-70b. (??!!!)

    It’s the first time I’ve used a local model and did [not] just say wow this is neat, or that was impressive, but rather, wow, this is finally good enough for business settings (at least for my needs). I’m very excited to keep pushing on it. Llama 3.1 failed miserably, as did any other model I tried.

    For story telling or creative writing, I would rather have the more interesting broken english output of a Markov chain generator, or maybe a tarot deck or D100 table. Markov chains are also genuinely great for random name generators. I’ve actually laughed at Markov chains before with friends when we throw a group chat into one and see what comes out. I can’t imagine ever getting something like that from an LLM.