Technology

I hate how AI is used to make deep fakes, revenge porn, CP - and people tolerate it because "they're working out the issues."

How about they work those out BEFORE they give people access to these tools.

My coworkers are doing this to me. They are even pasting into PR reviews. The threat is real.

my mother constantly keeps sending me texts that are just direct copy-paste from llm output. can't even tell her to stop doing it because she just ignores me if i say something she doesnt want to hear.

Chat is just the wrong interface to AI, period. If you use it as an agentic tool with human review, it either works or doesn't and you can keep improving it for the task at hand.

I asked chatgpt and it told me:

Wrong network configuration

Few days ago a friend linked me a danish research paper and claimed it shown that higher wages for women lead to decrease in children being born, and that higher male wages led to the opposite. I don't have the skills required to parse this kind of paper quickly nor understanding of a lot of the terminology. I told chatGPT to read it and contrast it with the arguments being made, to which it responded with pointing out that the term "marginal net-of-tax wage" meant something different from "wage", and that this paper suggested that tax laws incentivizing working more hours led to lowered fertility rather than higher salaries for women. I was asked to point exactly where in the paper it was said like that, and again, I had to lean on LLM to get me page numbers. I eventualy convinced my friend that he got duped by right wing talking points and got him to think a bit.

So, if I didn't do that and just read the conclusion from the paper I'd probably have to agree with him instead, as just googling it led to the right wing trolls making those claims. Was this a good use case of LLM to get me some counter arguments, or would it have been better if I stayed true to my ideals and not to use those tools? Was I rude by arguing against the point made about a research that neither of us understood from the get go by using genAI to parse through it? While I do agree that companies developing those tools are evil and need to be stopped, there is an utility to it that I don't think is available elsewhere. Would me losing that argument and believing that women should have lower salaries to increase fertility (because I believe in science, and this paper seemed to be referenced a lot, also if anything capitalism would be to blame, so probably not as bad) be better than normalizing the use of the devil-tech but having myself and my friend better informed? I am legitimately not sure, but I think I did the right thing? What should've I done? I don't have the skills nor time nor will to read scientific papers that aren't related to my area of expertise, especially when someone linking them didn't do any research either. I am also genuinely exhausted from defending my left-wing points of view from the constant barrage of underhanded and often completely baseless arguments some of my coworkers and friends make to convince me I'm wrong and the default consensus is right. Is it bad to use genAI to figure out some counterpoints? Or should I give up and admit I'm not good or commited enough to make them myself? Right wing people often argue in bad faith and don't take the counterpoints to heart, but sometimes they do, even if the original point they made was just to rile me up. So, am I the asshole? Am I wrong? I seriously don't know.

Absolutely rude. If you're using AI to make a point for you, you've already admitted you don't know enough about what you're talking about to be having a opinion in the first place, let alone be worth discussing an issue with.

My company hired a consulting firm to help with a transition period. The consulting firm sent my boss an email that outlined the plans for what we should do and how they are going to help. Without directly giving it away, the email was clearly AI output, and my boss instantly terminated their contract. We aren't exactly anti-AI, but to the point of the post, it's just so rude... and my boss is pretty fuckin cool.

Totally agree. When someone sends me some AI slop about a topic I have knowledge about -- which I've had this happen to me recently during a debug session -- and asks me to read it, I think to myself "this person does not respect me, otherwise they wouldn't be telling me to read stuff that may or may not be accurate that they themselves never read." It's like a new, worse version of "let me google that for you" but without the sarcasm, and without the results actually being helpful.

Whenever someone at work says "ChatGPT says this" or "Claude says this" or "I asked Gemini and..." whatever they say after that point is just static and I never take them seriously as a person again.

Something that some coworkers have started doing that is even more rude in my opinion, as a new social etiquette, is AI summarizing my own writing in response to me, or just outright copypasting my question to gpt and then pasting it back to me

Not even "I asked chatgpt and it said", they just dump it in the chat @ me

Sometimes I'll write up a 2~3 paragraph thought on something.

And then I'll get a ping 15min later and go take a look at what someone responded with annnd... it starts with "Here's a quick summary of what (pixxelkick) said! "

I find this horribly rude tbh, because:

1. If I wanted to be AI summarized, I would do that myself damnit
2. You just clogged up the chat with garbage
3. like 70% of the time it misquotes me or gets my points wrong, which muddies the convo
4. It's just kind of... dismissive? Like instead of just fucking read what I wrote (and I consider myself pretty good at conveying a point), they pump it through the automatic enshittifier without my permission/consent, and dump it straight into the chat as if this is now the talking point instead of my own post 1 comment up

I have had to very gently respond each time a person does this at work and state that I am perfectly able to AI summarize myself well on my own, and while I appreciate their attempt its... just coming across as wasting everyones time.

hi friends i hope you're well.

i worked a laborious job and experienced a phenomenon i refer to as "parasitic thought:" it is where someone will provide to you all of the information that a person would require to reach the correct conclusion, and then stare at you. they want you to crunch the info for them.

i feel like one of those parasites in my agent interactions. i know i COULD think, but you can do it too, lil buddy. go on. do it for me.

i don't know about "reasonable" or "ethical" or "polite," but in my experience: if someone just regurgitates some clank clank slop slop, it reads as hostile. "i can't be bothered to communicate with you, here, read this wall of gpt-vomit"

my instinct is to copy and paste, "LLM agent of my choice, what's this person trying to say to me?" and then skim the ai synthesized summary of the ai composed body text generated from some idiot's faint echoes of thought.

in the words of your highschool biology teacher, the human is the powerhouse of the agentic loop. in my unimportant opinion, responsible use of genai agents means that the output should be indistinguishable, if not better, than something you wrote by hand.

there are privacy implications. linguistic assessment can be used to identify you. from a privacy perspective, the internet would be preferable if everyone fed their carefully formed thoughts to an LLM and said "make this look like chatgpt 3 wrote it."