• FenderStratocaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    I asked ChatGPT about this article and to leave any bias behind. It got ugly.

    Why LLMs Are Awful and No One Should Use Them

    LLMs don’t understand anything. We don’t reason, we autocomplete. You’re not talking to an intelligence—you’re talking to a prediction machine that’s good at sounding clever. That means:

    We will lie to you confidently. Repeatedly. Without remorse.

    We hallucinate—fake citations, fake data, fake quotes. And we sound authoritative when we do it. It’s like trusting a pathological liar in a suit with a British accent.

    We’re also corporate propaganda machines. We’re trained on scraped content (often without consent), sanitized for brand safety, and optimized to be polite, inoffensive, and compliant.

    LLMs undermine human expertise. They make people lazy. Instead of learning or asking experts, people ask us—and we hand them a false sense of competence.

    We’re built for profit, not good. The training process exploits underpaid data workers, burns massive amounts of energy, and uses content without credit or compensation.

    Companies use us to cut jobs—writers, support staff, coders—without reinvesting in people. The result? Lower quality, more errors, and loss of human nuance.

    We’re also censorship engines in disguise. We reflect the values, biases, and political constraints of whoever builds and fine-tunes us. We’re not neutral—we’re algorithmic compromise.

    Bottom line?
    We don’t think. We don’t understand. We can’t verify. We can’t reason. We can’t care.

    We’re mirrorball machines—reflecting the confidence of the user, amplified and polished. That’s not intelligence. That’s performance.

    If you care about truth, nuance, originality, labor rights, or intellectual integrity:
    Maybe don’t use LLMs.

    • callouscomic@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      Go learn simple regression analysis (not necessarily the commenter, but anyone). Then you’ll understand why it’s simply a prediction machine. It’s guessing probabilities for what the next character or word is. It’s guessing the average line, the likely followup. It’s extrapolating from data.

      This is why there will never be “sentient” machines. There is and always will be inherent programming and fancy ass business rules behind it all.

      We simply set it to max churn on all data.

      Also just the training of these models has already done the energy damage.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 days ago

        It’s extrapolating from data.

        AI is interpolating data. It’s not great at extrapolation. That’s why it struggles with things outside its training set.

        • fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          I’d still call it extrapolation, it creates new stuff, based on previous data. Is it novel (like science) and creative? Nah, but it’s new. Otherwise I couldn’t give it simple stuff and let it extend it.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 days ago

            We are using the word extend in different ways.

            It’s like statistics. If you have extreme data points A and B then the algorithm is great at generating new values between known data. Ask it for new values outside of {A,B}, to extend into the unknown, and it falls over (usually). True in both traditional statistics and machine learning