I am a total badass! :D golden.

To be fair, yes - I found the Scottish more approachable so far :)

bit of a ridiculous sentiment when there’s so many guides for stuff online that I wouldn’t know which category to put myself in. I definitely didn’t take classes nor read books on it, yet I absolutely took a guided approach.

And you have missed the part where I explicitly mentioned that LLMs are NOT “sapient” or “sentient”, which would preclude “consciousness” also.

I am inclined to believe that people who use the word "sapi*"anything are just very very gullible and/or Dunning-Kruger-victims.

You completely missed the point I made that links understanding and conscience in humans.

My main point is that the use of the term “intelligence” to describe sometbing that is absolutely without any understanding, by people who don’t try to sell the snake oil and should have the interests of others in mind, is a disservice to educating people about the dangers.

The theft is built-in and foundational how this technology works

Aye, this is one of the key takeaways.

Another being that the technology is good enough to mass-manipulate people. And for statistically “helpful” surveillance tasks in a totalitarian police state.

It was already difficult to find people who know how to phrase good requirements and / or design an architecture before the slop machines got introduced. It will be so much worse for the next couple of decades, with idiots bullshitting their way past HR into a position.

with biological neurons that produce probabilistic results

Ah, so you understood neurons better than neuroscientists, eh? You have missed the part where no scientist worth their name claims to be able to fully explain how consciousness works and whether or not it affects our decision making.

LLMs are absolutely intelligent.

Okay, I think we’re done here. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

But that doesn’t mean LLM’S don’t fit some of the technical definitions of AI

When faced with slop vendors arguing in bad faith, we shouldn’t get caught up on technicalities. The “technically it is (a subset of) AI” argument is used to sell gullible people solutions that are already getting people killed - and not necessarily those who were gullible enough to believe the “AI” bullshit.

So for LLMs, it should be common sense to call them slop / dangerous bullshit generators and refuse to talk with anyone who sells them as “AI”.

The randomness in Eliza (I never reviewed the code) would have been of the sorts “out of x possible answers indexed starting with zero, do a truncate( ran( 1.0 ) * X ) and select the answer with that index”. But yeah, apart from that it was deterministic. Same input history = same output.

Nah, Eliza had a programmed logic, all phrases she reacted to had been implemented deterministically by a human. There was no training data.

LLMs clap are clap not clap AI clap.

Try to get that into you sycophant brain, and you will understand why this bullshit happens in the first place.

Plagiarism is the core and only mechanism of LLMs that produces anything that people get impressed by. The pre- and postprocessing logic for grammar rules is not the stuff that makes gullible people believe there is “intelligence” involved.

Best of luck!

LLMs use a new way of data processing (focused on language rules) which is what brought the boost. Not more training data. More training data is needed for an LLM to reach “maturity” but it also increases cost due to resource usage. And current LLMs have already absorbed basically all of the internet and most books, and since the internet is now full of slop, more unpoisoned training data does not exist. That’s why more does not help anymore.

I’m with Linus Torvalds

you mean the guy who started losing his marbles like 5 years ago?

Then, what makes the process between product managers and software developers very often a bit friction-loaded is that good developers always want to have clear specifications what they are supposed to build.

Excellent observation, which aligns with my observation that fans of “coding assistants” can’t wrap their head around algorithms, not to mention a sound software architecture.

I froze my rsync package the day that was announced. fuck the dev :(

I don’t see how the machine that generates code that must be assumed to be broken, and statements about said code that must be assumed to be wrong, until both have been manually verified, because the “hallucination” issue is inherent to the design of LLMs and cannot be solved, is supposed to make my life easier. Especially since a well known problem in computer science is that writing code is more fun than reading it.

quoted for emphasis. you have more patience than I do in telling sycophants why their take is idiotic.

but blanket hate for AI in code is extremely frustrating

you misspelled “extremely deserved”

that was previous commenter’s point. you missed it. LLM coding assistants are for people who can’t think their way through an algorithm.