10 ms·

I would have thought it obvious that LLMs' primary usefulness is as force-multipliers of the messaging sent out into a society. Each member of hoi polloi will b

I would have thought it obvious that LLMs' primary usefulness is as force-multipliers of the messaging sent out into a society. Each member of hoi polloi will be absolutely cocooned in thick blankets of near-duplicative communications and interactions most of which are not human. The only way to control the internet, you see, proved to be to drown it out.

kragen 1y ago
I cannot imagine what it would be like to have such overconfidence in my own knowledge and imagination to think it was obvious to me what LLMs' primary usefulness was. What did people think the primary usefulness of steam-engines was in 01780?
- Exoristos 1y ago
  Usefulness as of today, approximately. That is, that the massive interest and investment is not all speculation.
  - kragen 1y ago
    The massive interest and investment is about its usefulness (or profitability) in the future, not as of today, almost by definition! It's necessarily mostly speculative.
- forgetfreeman 1y ago
  This seems like a lack of perspective on your part. Why would AIs primary usefulness be substantially different than any other software? Steam engines don't really factor into this.
- GolfPopper 1y ago
  Steam engines move stuff. That was obvious from the start. How that was applied became complex beyond imagination. LLMs cheaply produce plausible and persuasive BS. This is what they've done from the start. Exactly how that ability will be applied we don't know, but it doesn't take a lot to see that the Venn Diagram of 'cheap & effective BS' and 'public good' does not have a great deal of overlap.
  - foxglacier 1y ago
    I guess you weren't around in the 2000's when every kid in school was taught not to trust information from random internet sources. Even Wikipedia was often not allowed by teachers as a reference, and probably still isn't. Society faced this problem already with the internet in general. Were or are you opposed to the internet in general, and especially the freedom for random people to publish what they like?
    - AngryData 1y ago
      Wikipedia is and never will be a good reference source, regardless of the accuracy of the information on it, because it is an encyclopedia. Everything on it is secondhand of the primary source. What you can be referencing is the primary sources that wikipedia is sourced from though.
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    It wasn't obvious in 1780 if you could build a steam engine that would be reliable and small enough to move itself, for example. Or if you can produce enough steel rails to build a real railway network. It took 50 years of progress to find out that steam-powered railway was indeed viable. (For a modern parallel - we haven't built a small, portable nuclear reactor ever. The closest you get are nuclear-powered submarines, but no nuclear trucks.)
- alfalfasprout 1y ago
  What a nonsensical argument. Improved locomotion was an obvious result of steam engines. What followed from that could be reasonably predicted. With LLMs, suddenly we have a tool that can generate misinformation on a scale like never before. Messaging can be controlled. Given that the main drivers of this technology (zuck, nadella, altman, and others) have chosen to make befellows of autocrats what follows is surely not a surprise.
  - fuelled6532 1y ago
    Well, for the first 90 or so years, they were mostly used for draining water from mines. The locomotion thing might not have been as obvious at the time as it is in hindsight.
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      The water from mines was then put into canals, which floated canal boats loaded with coal from the mines into towns. This cheap energy allowed the populations of towns to grow, and soon later powered factories in those towns. The trains thing did come a bit later, but the steam engines were already causing a revolution.
      - fuelled6532 1y ago
        That's funny. Also nonsense. The canal boats were replaced by steam railways. A hundred years later. The water in the canals came from regular sources, by gravity. It took decades to even get steam engines that turned a shaft (as opposed to rocking a beam up and down).
        lupusreal 1y ago
        You're confused and not even contradicting what I said. Read it again. Steam engines (which rocked a bar, not rotated a shaft) were put to use draining water out of coal mines. They were powered by that same coal, and the water they pumped out was put right into the canals (where else would you put it?). This made coal cheaper, which in turn allowed more people to move from the country to the cities because cities were no longer reliant on firewood. Growing urban populations was demanded and supported by growing industry in those cities. My whole point is that all of these factors complimented each other, they created a feedback loop that was the industrial revolution. Trains came later, after the industrial revolution was already well underway. That's what I said already.
- mindslight 1y ago
  War. The first application of new technology is always war. In the year x780 and today.
  - GeoAtreides 1y ago
    No, the first application of steam engines was pumping water from deep coal mines
    - mindslight 1y ago
      And kragen's comment wasn't even about the first application. Forgive me for being cynical while an American city is being attacked by the American military to the sound of cheers, seemingly because people have just had it too good. We just don't fucking learn.
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    That is too simplistic. Plenty of new technology saw civilian use first, such as photography, X-ray, telephone, moveable type, smartphones or smallpox inoculation. Even FPV drones were mostly an over-the-counter toy for nerds until 2022. Now civilian use only, that would be different, few technologies are civilian-only, with no possible military use. But war as the first use is not as frequent case as you assert.
- Havoc 1y ago
  To be fair most technological leaps tend to be turned towards coercing others pretty fast so pretty safe bet
timewizard 1y ago
> I would have thought it obvious that LLMs' primary usefulness is as force-multipliers of the messaging sent out into a society. I see this a lot and this is not at all obvious to me. I'm very much an introvert. Would you describe yourself as the same or opposite? > Each member of hoi polloi will be absolutely cocooned I generally read specific publications and generally don't seek to "interact" online and entirely avoid social media. Prior to the existence of social media this was the norm. Do you not at all suspect that this overuse of LLMs would push people back towards a more primitive use of the network? > The only way to control the internet, you see, proved to be to drown it out. Yet I see them sparing no expense when it comes to manipulating the law. It seems there's a bit more to it than punching down on the "hoi polloi."
- SecretDreams 1y ago
  > Do you not at all suspect that this overuse of LLMs would push people back towards a more primitive use of the network? The Internet's enshitification is a lot like entropy. It can only go in one direction, even if the user base would genuinely prefer another.
  - andsoitis 1y ago
    When was the internet at its highest quality?
    - jakimfett 1y ago
      Before we plugged it in.
      - SecretDreams 1y ago
        "In the beginning"
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  >> I would have thought it obvious that LLMs' primary usefulness is as force-multipliers of the messaging sent out into a society. > I see this a lot and this is not at all obvious to me. Here is an example as to how LLM's are jet fuel for spreading arbitrary disinformation. Scripting the interaction below is trivial with minor prompt alteration and is left as an exercise for the reader. Prompt: Generate 10 unique sentences supporting removing fluoride from municipal water. Make 2 aggressive. Answers: Here are 10 unique sentences supporting removing fluoride from municipal water supplies: Municipal water fluoridation represents a form of mass medication without individual consent, violating the fundamental principle of informed medical choice. The practice of adding industrial-grade fluoride chemicals to drinking water is an assault on public health that must be stopped immediately. (aggressive) Studies have linked excessive fluoride exposure to dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and potential neurological effects, particularly in children. Modern toothpaste and dental care products already provide adequate fluoride exposure for those who choose it, making water fluoridation redundant. It's time to end the archaic and dangerous practice of medicating entire populations through the water supply against their will. (aggressive) European countries like Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands have successfully maintained good dental health without water fluoridation programs. The optimal fluoride dosage cannot be controlled through water supplies since people consume varying amounts of water based on age, health, and activity level. Water fluoridation disproportionately affects low-income communities who cannot afford filtration systems to remove unwanted chemicals. Natural fluoride exposure through food sources provides sufficient intake without the need for artificial supplementation in drinking water. Communities should have the right to vote on whether they want fluoride added to their water supply rather than having it imposed by government mandate. > I'm very much an introvert. Would you describe yourself as the same or opposite? How is this in any way relevant to the original premise regarding "LLM's primary usefulness"?
BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
If by hoi polloi you mean the masses… no? People may use that for commercial exchanges but there’s an obvious craving for social interaction that that doesn’t satisfy, which is part of what glues people to social media. If you mean the elite, then also no. They’ve been able to do this by using people as their buffers already, and they’ll probably continue to do so if they’re rich enough.
SecretDreams 1y ago
This captured well the essence of my own concerns. Particularly the force-multiplier terminology you've applied here.
root_axis 1y ago
I don't buy this idea. The media is overflowing with a cloying overload of crap already far beyond what any individual can manage. The average attention span is already at full saturation, dumping a mass of AI generated slop onto the pile isn't going to change much. > The only way to control the internet, you see, proved to be to drown it out. The way to control the internet is to literally control it, like the governments already do.
karn97 1y ago
[dead]

kragen 1y ago

I cannot imagine what it would be like to have such overconfidence in my own knowledge and imagination to think it was obvious to me what LLMs' primary usefulness was. What did people think the primary usefulness of steam-engines was in 01780?

Exoristos 1y ago
Usefulness as of today, approximately. That is, that the massive interest and investment is not all speculation.
- kragen 1y ago
  The massive interest and investment is about its usefulness (or profitability) in the future, not as of today, almost by definition! It's necessarily mostly speculative.
forgetfreeman 1y ago
This seems like a lack of perspective on your part. Why would AIs primary usefulness be substantially different than any other software? Steam engines don't really factor into this.
GolfPopper 1y ago
Steam engines move stuff. That was obvious from the start. How that was applied became complex beyond imagination. LLMs cheaply produce plausible and persuasive BS. This is what they've done from the start. Exactly how that ability will be applied we don't know, but it doesn't take a lot to see that the Venn Diagram of 'cheap & effective BS' and 'public good' does not have a great deal of overlap.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  I guess you weren't around in the 2000's when every kid in school was taught not to trust information from random internet sources. Even Wikipedia was often not allowed by teachers as a reference, and probably still isn't. Society faced this problem already with the internet in general. Were or are you opposed to the internet in general, and especially the freedom for random people to publish what they like?
  - AngryData 1y ago
    Wikipedia is and never will be a good reference source, regardless of the accuracy of the information on it, because it is an encyclopedia. Everything on it is secondhand of the primary source. What you can be referencing is the primary sources that wikipedia is sourced from though.
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  It wasn't obvious in 1780 if you could build a steam engine that would be reliable and small enough to move itself, for example. Or if you can produce enough steel rails to build a real railway network. It took 50 years of progress to find out that steam-powered railway was indeed viable. (For a modern parallel - we haven't built a small, portable nuclear reactor ever. The closest you get are nuclear-powered submarines, but no nuclear trucks.)
alfalfasprout 1y ago
What a nonsensical argument. Improved locomotion was an obvious result of steam engines. What followed from that could be reasonably predicted. With LLMs, suddenly we have a tool that can generate misinformation on a scale like never before. Messaging can be controlled. Given that the main drivers of this technology (zuck, nadella, altman, and others) have chosen to make befellows of autocrats what follows is surely not a surprise.
- fuelled6532 1y ago
  Well, for the first 90 or so years, they were mostly used for draining water from mines. The locomotion thing might not have been as obvious at the time as it is in hindsight.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    The water from mines was then put into canals, which floated canal boats loaded with coal from the mines into towns. This cheap energy allowed the populations of towns to grow, and soon later powered factories in those towns. The trains thing did come a bit later, but the steam engines were already causing a revolution.
    - fuelled6532 1y ago
      That's funny. Also nonsense. The canal boats were replaced by steam railways. A hundred years later. The water in the canals came from regular sources, by gravity. It took decades to even get steam engines that turned a shaft (as opposed to rocking a beam up and down).
      - lupusreal 1y ago
        You're confused and not even contradicting what I said. Read it again. Steam engines (which rocked a bar, not rotated a shaft) were put to use draining water out of coal mines. They were powered by that same coal, and the water they pumped out was put right into the canals (where else would you put it?). This made coal cheaper, which in turn allowed more people to move from the country to the cities because cities were no longer reliant on firewood. Growing urban populations was demanded and supported by growing industry in those cities. My whole point is that all of these factors complimented each other, they created a feedback loop that was the industrial revolution. Trains came later, after the industrial revolution was already well underway. That's what I said already.
mindslight 1y ago
War. The first application of new technology is always war. In the year x780 and today.
- GeoAtreides 1y ago
  No, the first application of steam engines was pumping water from deep coal mines
  - mindslight 1y ago
    And kragen's comment wasn't even about the first application. Forgive me for being cynical while an American city is being attacked by the American military to the sound of cheers, seemingly because people have just had it too good. We just don't fucking learn.
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  That is too simplistic. Plenty of new technology saw civilian use first, such as photography, X-ray, telephone, moveable type, smartphones or smallpox inoculation. Even FPV drones were mostly an over-the-counter toy for nerds until 2022. Now civilian use only, that would be different, few technologies are civilian-only, with no possible military use. But war as the first use is not as frequent case as you assert.
Havoc 1y ago
To be fair most technological leaps tend to be turned towards coercing others pretty fast so pretty safe bet

timewizard 1y ago

> I would have thought it obvious that LLMs' primary usefulness is as force-multipliers of the messaging sent out into a society. I see this a lot and this is not at all obvious to me. I'm very much an introvert. Would you describe yourself as the same or opposite? > Each member of hoi polloi will be absolutely cocooned I generally read specific publications and generally don't seek to "interact" online and entirely avoid social media. Prior to the existence of social media this was the norm. Do you not at all suspect that this overuse of LLMs would push people back towards a more primitive use of the network? > The only way to control the internet, you see, proved to be to drown it out. Yet I see them sparing no expense when it comes to manipulating the law. It seems there's a bit more to it than punching down on the "hoi polloi."

SecretDreams 1y ago
> Do you not at all suspect that this overuse of LLMs would push people back towards a more primitive use of the network? The Internet's enshitification is a lot like entropy. It can only go in one direction, even if the user base would genuinely prefer another.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  When was the internet at its highest quality?
  - jakimfett 1y ago
    Before we plugged it in.
    - SecretDreams 1y ago
      "In the beginning"
AdieuToLogic 1y ago
>> I would have thought it obvious that LLMs' primary usefulness is as force-multipliers of the messaging sent out into a society. > I see this a lot and this is not at all obvious to me. Here is an example as to how LLM's are jet fuel for spreading arbitrary disinformation. Scripting the interaction below is trivial with minor prompt alteration and is left as an exercise for the reader. Prompt: Generate 10 unique sentences supporting removing fluoride from municipal water. Make 2 aggressive. Answers: Here are 10 unique sentences supporting removing fluoride from municipal water supplies: Municipal water fluoridation represents a form of mass medication without individual consent, violating the fundamental principle of informed medical choice. The practice of adding industrial-grade fluoride chemicals to drinking water is an assault on public health that must be stopped immediately. (aggressive) Studies have linked excessive fluoride exposure to dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and potential neurological effects, particularly in children. Modern toothpaste and dental care products already provide adequate fluoride exposure for those who choose it, making water fluoridation redundant. It's time to end the archaic and dangerous practice of medicating entire populations through the water supply against their will. (aggressive) European countries like Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands have successfully maintained good dental health without water fluoridation programs. The optimal fluoride dosage cannot be controlled through water supplies since people consume varying amounts of water based on age, health, and activity level. Water fluoridation disproportionately affects low-income communities who cannot afford filtration systems to remove unwanted chemicals. Natural fluoride exposure through food sources provides sufficient intake without the need for artificial supplementation in drinking water. Communities should have the right to vote on whether they want fluoride added to their water supply rather than having it imposed by government mandate. > I'm very much an introvert. Would you describe yourself as the same or opposite? How is this in any way relevant to the original premise regarding "LLM's primary usefulness"?

BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago

If by hoi polloi you mean the masses… no? People may use that for commercial exchanges but there’s an obvious craving for social interaction that that doesn’t satisfy, which is part of what glues people to social media. If you mean the elite, then also no. They’ve been able to do this by using people as their buffers already, and they’ll probably continue to do so if they’re rich enough.

SecretDreams 1y ago

This captured well the essence of my own concerns. Particularly the force-multiplier terminology you've applied here.

root_axis 1y ago

I don't buy this idea. The media is overflowing with a cloying overload of crap already far beyond what any individual can manage. The average attention span is already at full saturation, dumping a mass of AI generated slop onto the pile isn't going to change much. > The only way to control the internet, you see, proved to be to drown it out. The way to control the internet is to literally control it, like the governments already do.

karn97 1y ago

[dead]