3 ms·

"Demand" / "market" has to win the award for the words most used to paper over the hideous inhumanity of large systems.

OutOfHere 2y ago
That's a bit of a generalization. Because humans themselves typically don't act in their own best interest, there is more interest in low-impact forgettable materials produced by AI than in good-quality life-changing materials produced by AI. Take for example a project I developed: https://github.com/impredicative/newssurvey https://github.com/impredicative/newssurvey which is absolutely intended to value one's humanity and help it. I'd like to think it has already enhanced the quality of life for multiple people with its revelations. Humans won't typically value anything so constructive though until it's too late for them individually.
- uhfido 2y ago
  > I'd like to think it has already enhanced the quality of life for multiple people with its revelations. Your definition of "revelations" seems to be: stripping any useful context and over applying underlying concepts wrapped in overly verbose prose. (Maybe have an LLM summarize these lengthy summaries, ala "Thanks to AI I don't need to read all those 300,000 words now, right?"[0]) For instance, from your "Nutritional Strategies and Supplements for Managing Anxiety in Adults" example, Section 19 Links Between High-Fat Diets and Anxiety Development: > Studies observing the effects of specific high-fat food components, like those found in soybean oil, suggest that these can disrupt gut microbiota balance, further aggravating conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, which are closely linked with anxiety disorders[49] Looking at [49] you get the article: Widely consumed vegetable oil leads to an unhealthy gut, finds mouse study. Your use of an LLM created slop that removed the context of it being a mice study, and instead stated the underlying conclusions as actionable fact for "adults". This is dangerous, and well, sloppy. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41646994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41646994
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    Don't blame me. It reads the referenced article and uses it. If the referenced article is sloppy (as per your ivory-tower standards), then the AI's analysis can reflect the same. Tell me, why does the referenced article say: > "We recommend keeping track of the soybean oil in your diet to make sure you are not consuming excessive linoleic acid," Deol said. "That is our take-home message." Maybe you should be emailing the researchers instead about how you think science reporting should be done. Also, the AI sees things in a broader perspective than you. If there are other references that add weight to the thought, basically everything else in the section, it will use them to produce a cohesive output. Also let me remind you that things work differently from a risk management perspective. For someone who is suffering, mice or no mice, they will be far better off heeding the advice until more science comes along. The only thing dangerous here is the wilful ignorance espoused by you. Even so, acting in good faith, I will see what I can do to alter the prompt to maintain the context.
    - uhfido 2y ago
      [dead]
      - OutOfHere 2y ago
        Sorry, I prefer real sites over fake sites, but it is now obvious who prefers reading fake materials. And I'm not talking about AI generation. Your preference for reading material tells me all I need to know about you, which is that if I were to keep taking the average of those who are below average, recursively so, it will still take me many iterations to arrive at how low your standard is. You obviously created a new account just to comment to this thread, which also goes to show that you do not have the courage to stand by what you write.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    For what it's worth, I have now updated some LLM prompts to partially prevent it. The sample has been regenerated. It's never going to be perfect, but it's a lot better than what most humans have to offer.

That's a bit of a generalization. Because humans themselves typically don't act in their own best interest, there is more interest in low-impact forgettable materials produced by AI than in good-quality life-changing materials produced by AI. Take for example a project I developed: https://github.com/impredicative/newssurvey https://github.com/impredicative/newssurvey which is absolutely intended to value one's humanity and help it. I'd like to think it has already enhanced the quality of life for multiple people with its revelations. Humans won't typically value anything so constructive though until it's too late for them individually.

uhfido 2y ago
> I'd like to think it has already enhanced the quality of life for multiple people with its revelations. Your definition of "revelations" seems to be: stripping any useful context and over applying underlying concepts wrapped in overly verbose prose. (Maybe have an LLM summarize these lengthy summaries, ala "Thanks to AI I don't need to read all those 300,000 words now, right?"[0]) For instance, from your "Nutritional Strategies and Supplements for Managing Anxiety in Adults" example, Section 19 Links Between High-Fat Diets and Anxiety Development: > Studies observing the effects of specific high-fat food components, like those found in soybean oil, suggest that these can disrupt gut microbiota balance, further aggravating conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, which are closely linked with anxiety disorders[49] Looking at [49] you get the article: Widely consumed vegetable oil leads to an unhealthy gut, finds mouse study. Your use of an LLM created slop that removed the context of it being a mice study, and instead stated the underlying conclusions as actionable fact for "adults". This is dangerous, and well, sloppy. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41646994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41646994
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  Don't blame me. It reads the referenced article and uses it. If the referenced article is sloppy (as per your ivory-tower standards), then the AI's analysis can reflect the same. Tell me, why does the referenced article say: > "We recommend keeping track of the soybean oil in your diet to make sure you are not consuming excessive linoleic acid," Deol said. "That is our take-home message." Maybe you should be emailing the researchers instead about how you think science reporting should be done. Also, the AI sees things in a broader perspective than you. If there are other references that add weight to the thought, basically everything else in the section, it will use them to produce a cohesive output. Also let me remind you that things work differently from a risk management perspective. For someone who is suffering, mice or no mice, they will be far better off heeding the advice until more science comes along. The only thing dangerous here is the wilful ignorance espoused by you. Even so, acting in good faith, I will see what I can do to alter the prompt to maintain the context.
  - uhfido 2y ago
    [dead]
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      Sorry, I prefer real sites over fake sites, but it is now obvious who prefers reading fake materials. And I'm not talking about AI generation. Your preference for reading material tells me all I need to know about you, which is that if I were to keep taking the average of those who are below average, recursively so, it will still take me many iterations to arrive at how low your standard is. You obviously created a new account just to comment to this thread, which also goes to show that you do not have the courage to stand by what you write.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  For what it's worth, I have now updated some LLM prompts to partially prevent it. The sample has been regenerated. It's never going to be perfect, but it's a lot better than what most humans have to offer.