this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
188 points (80.9% liked)

Technology

88146 readers
2335 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm not an AI techie and I'm not well educated on LLMs/AI in general. The issue I'm having is the dichotomy between how people talk about it. I've heard completely opposite ends of the spectrum. From AI is quickly becoming advanced enough to threaten human society, all the way to its a glorified dictionary/search engine that can't really do much of anything. I know Lemmy has a steep anti-AI slant. But, can someone talk about this in a way I can wrap my head around why the divide seems so big?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MrOtingocni@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago

'Sensationalist hooey, cooked by superstitious yokels seeing phantoms of their own imagining.'

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Oh how I would love for AI to actually start rapidly self-improving.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dropdrip@lemmy.ml 6 points 13 hours ago

There's blood on their hands. Either they keep the hype up or go to jail regardless of any of their statements being true or not.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 18 points 18 hours ago

Many are skeptical that there is a push by ai companies to make them appear more than they are due to their weak economic footing. From my experience with the llms I am not frightened they will become self aware. I am frightened that we are wasting energy and resources while polluting the planet further for little return and it will result in messing up our economies even more.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Here's an idea: don't use unsafe software where safety is needed.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (3 children)
[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

You don't know? ... Wow. How about the error rate? Let's start there.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

No, as previously stated I am not educated on the subject almost at all. Why I framed the post as a question.

[–] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

For a start you might want to read this interview with Emily M. Bender who is a well-known critic and has much to say about what people need to understand when using these systems that are incorrectly labelled "AI":

https://spectrum.ieee.org/stochastic-parrot

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 3 points 9 hours ago

How ironic that she is called Bender

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Awesome. This is the exact type of thkng I was looking for. Will read soon. Thanks!

[–] tachikoma@lemmy.today 4 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

To me, what makes LLMs unsafe is they are nondeteramistic.

If I remember correctly; Nondetermanistic means the LLM can, could, and will have different answers/outcomes for the same question.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The lack of consistency potentially leads to negative outcomes?

[–] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Well, if the output varies in a way you can't predict, then even if one of the inputs is "don't do anything negative" it might not always follow it exactly.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

Makes sense

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, because it's all statistical. You can test this yourself. Go to Google and search for something. Then search for that same exact thing again. Gemini will give you a different response each time.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (3 children)

Good job in helping with their guerilla marketing campaign.

When a corporation raises that working for government will be more profitable than working for consumers, they pivot to scaremongering, but always with the undercurrent of "and that's why you should PAY US so that you own the nukes, and not your enemies"

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago

Personally, this just feels like marketing and these big asshole companies trying to resurrect the 2025 level of hype in order to salvage their IPO's.

If they honestly believed this I can't imagine that their workers wouldn't do something more drastic.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›