Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P

PeriodicallyPedantic

@ PeriodicallyPedantic @lemmy.ca

Posts
6
Comments
1061
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I probably should have said "safely" rather than just "sanitary", I was thinking about water burials and ground water contamination when I said that.And also just like... Leaving the body out in a public area.

    As long as you're not putting people in danger, and you're not disrespecting the deceased, what would be illegal?

  • That's kind of what I meant by sanitary. Idk what the appropriate word would be. "Safe" I guess?

  • I didn't realize that there were any illegal ways to dispose of a body, as long as it's in their will and sanitary

  • Slangs

    Jump
  • That entirely depended on how 1337 you were 😬

  • Slangs

    Jump
  • Yeah, it should be slangopodes.

  • Slangs

    Jump
  • This is absolutely not the reason, because even back then when we started doing it, we did it on ICQ, MSN, etc. those chats didn't have length restrictions, and typing was easy on a keyboard.

  • Slangs

    Jump
  • Share Your Crayons, Bestie Susie

  • That means you need to take your pants all the way off.Which means you need to take your shoes off.

    I'm not removing my shoes and pants to shit in a public work toilet. I'ma grab a cushion from the lobby sofa and use it to prop up my feet

  • Gonna bring by own squatty potty to work

  • Named after a maneuver

  • Mainly self-delusion 😌

  • I recognize that I didn't present a very coherent comment, but that's basically what I meant with my last sentence, lol

  • It is a very thick but even taller strip of land.

    The point of reference for it's thinness shouldn't be it's own height, but rather the sizes of countries in general.

    I mean, it's still be thin, but the UK has no place throwing stones from within that glass house lol

  • Normal Google search is already curated.And when you're done with the list of curated results and you want more? You click "next page" to get the next page of curated results. 10 curated results at a time.

    The chat bot is NOT like asking someone to look into it, it just LOOKS like it. Don't anthropomorphize chatbots, because then they trick you into thinking they're doing something they're not.

    You evaluate the references they send you, but you don't evaluate the references they don't send you.This is a problem with Google SEO too, but LLM equivalent is already a problem and getting worse.

  • But like I said, if you're using it like a search then it's just worse.It's way slower, it's way fewer results, and the summaries can never be as accurate as verbatim quotes of the pages themselves.

    The only reason to use AI is to get the summary, and then you're not using it as a search. Maybe it provides some references you can use to fact check, but that's still not a search.

    You have to remember, LLM's are literally just auto-complete. They don't have the goal of giving you an answer or resources, they have the goal of providing text that would complete the conversation in a way that looks similar to what they've seen before. If they can give you a biased answer supported by cherry picked references, that's just as valid of a completion, because it looks like how such a conversation might be completed.

    In situations where the response can be inherently assessed for correctness (eg art, but that's a whole other ethical issue) or correctness can be automatically verified (eg programming) then there is some value in limited use. Although I personally think the implications of putting it in the hands of business owners isn't worth it, that another topic.

  • Like a normal search, except it only provides like 4 links, it's choice of links is even worse than Google SEO, and it provides inaccurate summaries of them rather than relevant text snippets.

    So yes, people just taking the response as gospel is bad. But also it's just worse than search if you're using it as a search.

  • If what you want is sources, a regular Google search will do a better job if it's a popular subject.

    Chatgpt and it's kin will be inexplicably creative in its choice of sources, and in its summary thereof. And in the sources themselves sometimes.

    If it's something you care to get right, just skip AI.If it's meaningless, then it's harmless in its potential inaccuracy

  • Honestly I'm part of the problem a little bit.

    In my hobby project I used GitHub copilot, to help me ramp up on unfamiliar tech. I was integrating three unfamiliar platforms in an unfamiliar program language, and it helped expose the APIs and language features I didn't know about. It was almost like a tutorial; it'd make some code that was kinda broken, but fixing it would introduce me to new language features and API resources that would help me. Which was nice because I struggle to just read API specs.

    I've also used it when on my d&d campaign to create images of new settings. It just a 3 player weekly game so it's hard to justify paying an artist for a rush job. Not great, I know. I hope the furry community has more backbone than I do, because they're singlehandedly keeping the illustration industry afloat at this point.

  • Dont use AI chat as a replacement for search except on popular subjects with broad consensus. Which unfortunately is when you generally don't need it.