this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
380 points (99.7% liked)
Fuck AI
8622 readers
2124 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
Rules:
- Relevant posts only.
- No bigotry.
- This isn't a place to talk about the cons and (supposed) pros of AI for different use cases. This is /c/fuck_ai .
- Especially no AI advocacy.
- Don't make any posts that are just AI content with no context unless the point of your post is obvious from content. (Don't just post slop advertisements or slop political cartoons. At least make your point about it clear so we know you aren't just trolling.)
- Venting is part of the purpose of this community, but don't aim frustration or accusations at other users.
- These rules are a living document that may change in the future.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, even in the absolute best case scenario, the LLM analysis is a trailing indicator. There's no way that it indicates current views, just possibly an indication of past views.
Personally I think this entire line of thinking ("silicon sampling") is dangerous af.
That's a good point, although I imagine a dedicated company could refine a model using more recently sampled general data to improve the recency.
Yeah, I'm not saying a tool akin to LLMs can't be used as part of a suite of software workflows for parsing through and analyzing large datasets (seems rather obvious to say that), but forgoing the real work of live data gathering and statistics evaluation in order to do a sort of "vibe polling" sounds extremely off to me.
I agree, which is why I find the results they got interesting, the fact that the initial study was able to, arguably quite correctly (well, debatable if it was correct, as I pointed out their results are not the easiest to evaluate), predict real results is pretty impressive.