mastodon - Link to source
If you're using AI to make content you're saving time and money but you're making shitty content. If you can't see the shittyness of the content, it's all the more reason you shouldn't be doing it.

reshared this

in reply to Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer)

mastodon - Link to source

Noisecolor

There are cases when scientists publish papers that they have written with ai and don't even understand themselves. But the papers are good. That happens a lot as humanity has already produced a lot of knowledge and just hasn't connected the dots a lot of times.

That's is a good example why you are wrong with your absolutist statements. Good content can and does come from ai. You just hate ai.

in reply to Noisecolor

mastodon - Link to source

ಚಿರಾಗ್ 🌹✊🏾Ⓥ🌱🇵🇸 (he/him)

@Noisecolor As a researcher, hell no. You should understand every word and idea you put in a paper. If you don't, you're not doing good science. This is basic shit.

And yes, I'd say the same thing even if they didn't use AI. That doesn't somehow magically turn bullshit into great science.

@Noisecolor
in reply to Noisecolor

mastodon - Link to source

Joe Vinegar 🏳️‍🌈

@Noisecolor your truism is a "false premise" fallacy.
Science is about understanding (and explaining).
The only way we know scientific content is actually good is if at least a few scientists validate it by understanding it and eventually successfully replicate or exploit the results.
AI content has not been understood by the meat proxy that shared it, so it lacks the very first step. The humans which prove (or disprove) that, are making the actual science. And why should anyone have their research agenda dictated by random enterprises *for free*? It's already as bad as it is with proper funding.
@Noisecolor
This entry was edited (Tuesday, October 13, 2026, 5:45 AM)
in reply to Noisecolor

mastodon - Link to source

Allen but one of the bad ones, woooo

@Noisecolor okay but how do you know the paper is good if you can't understand what it says? A paper has one job, and that is to communicate results and share knowledge with other researchers. It doesn't have to be understood by everybody but it should be understood by people who study whatever it is about, so if even the person who did the work it is describing can't explain it then it has failed.
@Noisecolor
in reply to Noisecolor

mastodon - Link to source

ButchCoolidge

@Noisecolor I agree with you, but not when it comes down to science.

Looking at so much shit content made before AI, it helps some people to create better content. To research their ideas, to reflect and to get better into the knowledge. But your statement really depends on the actual content.

@Noisecolor
in reply to Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer)

mastodon - Link to source

C++ pays the bills

@Noisecolor

Exactly. GenAI produces something that looks plausibly like a good paper if you don't understand what you're reading. No true scientist would publish a paper without understanding it, without having tried to disprove its central thesis, or without being prepared to answer questions about it.

@Noisecolor
in reply to Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer)

mastodon - Link to source

Michael Knudsen

@Noisecolor remember Feynman's "cargo cult science" speech?

This is non-science that the authors themselves cannot make meaning of.

Imagine if these people built houses and didn't know why they'd keep standing.

"but people can live in the ones that don't fall over"

@Noisecolor
in reply to Noisecolor

mastodon - Link to source

Wacholderpolka

@Noisecolor I agree. AI is no magic, it’s a complex tool. It creates things that can be good or bad, like every tool. If a scientist does not check the tools’ output, it is a bad scientist, not a bad tool.
AI created great content and can give the user the power, to create something he wasn’t able before. Many people have excellent ideas but 99% will never be realised because of missing money, knowledge…
AI can partly fix that.
@Noisecolor
in reply to Wacholderpolka

friendica - Link to source

Hypolite Petovan

@Wacholderpolka Except even in this case the "user" didn't create anything. The AI generates the things according to criterion that are partly obscured by design and partly controlled by a commercial entity.

There's nothing to fix here, if you want to actually create something, you have to do it yourself. Not everybody is meant to be author, visual artist, musician or coder, and we're completely unmaking what it means to create something as AI slop generated at scale overtakes human creations.

The "good enough" attitude is killing human culture for the profit of a handful of overvalued companies. This will not end well no matter what happens.

@Wacholderpolka
in reply to Noisecolor

mastodon - Link to source

UkeleleEric

@Noisecolor codswallop. Random joining of the whole of what the tool has been fed on (including misinformation, proven falsehoods, disproved hypotheses, flawed studies and opinions) is most unlikely to come up with anything usable, and the percentage of 'possible' 'good' stuff would be miniscule. Tell me you don't understand what AI does without telling me...
@Noisecolor
in reply to Noisecolor

friendica - Link to source

Hypolite Petovan

@Noisecolor Sci-fi is one of the worst predictors for what will actually happen because most authors knew what they were writing about was impossible but it did sound cool. GenAI is currently fooling people including you into thinking sci-fi could be real after all, but the physical and evolutionary constraints haven't changed, people are just mesmerized by a text extruder.
@Noisecolor
in reply to Noisecolor

mastodon - Link to source

Wacholderpolka

@Noisecolor Part 2: As you can see, people do not want to understand your point. AI is bad and there is no way to turn that belief around or have a more detailed opinion on good/bad topics. Intend to not discuss this with hardliners, waste of time. I discuss a lot with people that are open minded. AI is a great tool and a risky thing at the same time. We should use the first and try to avoid the latter.
One thing is for sure: it is here to stay.
@Noisecolor
in reply to Noisecolor

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Jonathan Lamothe

@Noisecolor What you say about Amazon is true. I think you need to understand the concept of survivorship bias though. For every Amazon there were hundreds of other companies that went belly up.

Is it possible that the AI industry will eventually become profitable? I suppose I have to concede that. I don't see the notion that it is anywhere near an inevitability to be a position that any rational person can defend though.

You are free to believe as you like, despite the mountain of contradictory evidence. I'm not the thought police. Just don't expect me to believe you.

@Noisecolor
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

mastodon - Link to source

Noisecolor

@me
I'm not trying to make you believe. Let's say I'm wondering what the scenario would be that this technology doesn't "catch on".
You think people will stop using llms? And the trillions of investments will just do nothing? Get scraped or something?
All the companies changing their structure, processes, to center their way of working around ai , they are all wrong and will restructure back?
It's not realistic.
@Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to Noisecolor

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Jonathan Lamothe

@Noisecolor I think the most likely outcome is that the money will eventually run out. A handful of grifters will perhaps come out ahead, but the vast majority will lose their shirts. This is a cycle that has repeated itself over and over throughout history, and yet somehow there are always people who are surprised when it happens.
@Noisecolor
in reply to Noisecolor

mastodon - Link to source

RalfMaximus

@Noisecolor
LLMs can only ever generate mid-grade content, the absolute average of everything consumed in training. It's designed that way. To statistically choose the next most likely word/phrase in a string. It can never "discover" anything new.

If it's "good" that's because it's regurgitating something good a human wrote, that the LLM consumed.

Why would anyone be excited by this?

@Noisecolor
in reply to Noisecolor

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Jonathan Lamothe

@Noisecolor @Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer) I am not a scientist and thus cannot comment specifically on that.

That said, I am a programmer. When I look at some of the trash that people have vibe coded, it makes me wonder if these scientific papers are actually any good, or if they just look good.

I've seen "working" code come out of AI, but all too often the actual underlying code ends up being brittle, unmaintainable, and a nightmare to reason through. It may look to an outsider like good code, but any even moderately competent programmer understands the perils of the massive amounts of technical debt these things needlessly introduce.

Maybe it's different with scientific papers, but I doubt it.

@Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer) @Noisecolor
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

friendica - Link to source

Hypolite Petovan

@Jonathan Lamothe @Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer) @Noisecolor It's the same with scientific papers. When there's an automated formal solution checker, these AI-generated papers pass it, but any human trying to decipher the proofs will have the worst time of their life.
@Jonathan Lamothe @Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer) @Noisecolor
in reply to Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer)

misskey - Link to source

divVerent

Which is why IMHO the only place for AI generated content is what previously was MS paint scribble memes like rage comics, troll science etc.

But... even that probably was better before AI. Because now thanks to AI, no one would even look at a meme made that old way...

in reply to Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer)

glitchsoc - Link to source

Keldrim

I would say the "saving money" part is only now because tech faschos try enforcing it and for now take the bill mostly them self, seen so many slop coders already who get overwhelmed be the token cost and cry like a baby about it.

And the "time" part is also temporary on many aspects as soon you have to go in and fix the underlying mess you don't even understand at this point, if it comes to code specifically.

And yeah for everything art related no brainer it sucks and i still have no idea how anyone can find it appealing.

in reply to Lou.

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Jonathan Lamothe

@Lou. @Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer) What we're calling AI this week "improves" by (mostly non-consentually) slurping up every piece of work that humans have ever produced, and consuming massive amounts of energy and fresh water, forcing the people unfortunate enough to live near the data centres to foot the bill.

Totally a good deal, right? 🙃

@Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer) @Lou.
in reply to Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer)

mastodon - Link to source

Tamitoune

Okay Ron, but seriously what’s the plan when the IPs you created and lost through poor deals will be legally acquired by entities whose sole purpose is to monetize them through automated, AI-generated content pipelines? Just hope that it will be done by people who are as bourgeois, gentrified, culturally aware and well educated as you are? Will that kind of classist cultural gatekeeping suffice?
in reply to Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer)

mastodon - Link to source

mossman

ironically, while I read this my wife is watching a "documentary" on YouTube about the Italian town we visited yesterday. Images are all obvious slop - which pains me no end and makes me instantly doubt any of the "facts" presented.

At least this one seems to be original text - the first one was obviously LLM text and voice as well. All the content in YouTube about this historical town seem to be slop... So annoying!

in reply to Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer)

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Jonathan Lamothe

@Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer) Plus, you're only able to "save money" for as long as these companies are willing to operate at an unfathomable loss to try to get as many people addicted as possible before they're eventually forced to jack up the price or just plain go out of business. Their model is so wildly unsustainable it's unreal.
@Ron Gilbert (GrumpyGamer)

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.

⇧