this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
1175 points (95.9% liked)

Fuck AI

7735 readers
3214 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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If that was the logic we were using then Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to have articles on health and law either. WebMD shouldn't have ever been legal either.

Obviously, the benefits to having that information available outweigh the hypothetical negatives. Even with them being incorrect, partial and easy to draw invalid conclusions from, having the information be freely and readily accessible is better for everyone.

[โ€“] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 1 points 53 minutes ago

I think the distinction is that looking up wikipedia or any other website that appears to have topics of information you can learn from is different from asking a tailored answer to your specific query.

One feels like more like research to improve your understanding, but you know you would have to go to a professional to ask specific questions around your circumstances.
And the other feels like your own 'personal professional' that answers all your little specific questions, but is really just a complex algorithm trying to make you happy and doesnt know if is telling you right or wrong, only that it shouldnt say it doesnt know.

A program that can be very confidently wrong while giving people advice that can mess up their life (healthcare, finiancial, legal advice, etc) could benefit some, but will ruin others make it not worth the risk?