Post

walking mirage
@wolf.observer

knowing how things work allows you to criticize and fight things way better than ignoring them because you dislike them does

walking mirage
@wolf.observer

insisting that guns are bad and their users are immoral, so you don't need to know anything about them, doesn't change what happens when someone aims one at you, and keeps you from knowing how to make one safe if it's necessary for you to do so

walking mirage
@wolf.observer

i think LLMs suck and it doesn't change the fact that someone can ask Claude Fable who I am (with its ability to search the web turned off) and it will tell them. knowing their capabilities allows me to intentionally shape my online presence to not stand out to something inhuman analyzing my posts

walking mirage
@wolf.observer

you can believe that LLMs are just as incapable as they were in 2023 all you want. that just means the FBI, which uses modern ones that work pretty well for whatever the hell they're doing with them, knows more about them than you do

8 reposts114 likes

walking mirage
@wolf.observer

also insisting they have or don't have characteristics or abilities that any coworker with a chatgpt account can go and disprove you about instantly just makes you look stupid, and reflects badly on everyone else. would you prefer ammo that can trivially be rendered inert, or do you want to win?

Josh
@jman4747.bsky.social

I'm just not sure it matters either way? Except for winning an argument, what problems can I solve better by knowing more about how they work?

walking mirage
@wolf.observer

bsky.app/profile/wolf...

walking mirage@wolf.observer

i think LLMs suck and it doesn't change the fact that someone can ask Claude Fable who I am (with its ability to search the web turned off) and it will tell them. knowing their capabilities allows me to intentionally shape my online presence to not stand out to something inhuman analyzing my posts

walking mirage
@wolf.observer

but also, like I said: you don't have to know bsky.app/profile/wolf...

walking mirage@wolf.observer

if the AI shit is driving you nuts and you're sick of hearing about it, you aren't required to know how it works. but you should at least try not to spread misinformation about it that's going to leave people who think you know what you're talking about ill-equipped to deal with it

walking mirage
@wolf.observer

if the AI shit is driving you nuts and you're sick of hearing about it, you aren't required to know how it works. but you should at least try not to spread misinformation about it that's going to leave people who think you know what you're talking about ill-equipped to deal with it

Dragon "Gay'ed Too Close to the Sun" Fish
@dragonfish.bsky.social

My understanding of "AI" LLMs is that it's just a fancy giant look up table. It can give you an answer because the answer was the most common thing people wanted when searching that series of words, but doesn't have the nuance to understand said words. So if a LOT of people are wrong,

maersk aerospace
@maersk-aerospace.bsky.social

i would gently push back on the notion that coworkers can meaningfully prove you wrong on average in the fields where these things are supposed to be the most effective. i have worked in software for a decade and every encounter with ai is still correcting obviously wrong output

maersk aerospace
@maersk-aerospace.bsky.social

that doesn't mean your coworkers won't generate something wrong, slap each other on the back, and call you an idiot, but it isn't the stuff working correctly, and it demonstrably on average still does not. code generation requires eagle eyed watching, reviews are reliably factually wrong, etc.

maersk aerospace
@maersk-aerospace.bsky.social

this is also not to say the thrust of "be correct in critiques" is wrong, it's just that i think a lot of critique of the variety of "it obviously sucks" gets unfairly dismissed when, in professional applications, it still just obviously does