this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2025
295 points (97.1% liked)

Fuck AI

4614 readers
983 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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 80 points 1 month ago (4 children)

seems like more than half the articles i click on anymore are shit-tier model garbage that was generated the instant i clicked the link

no proofreading, no editing, just instant word salad for the purpose of getting ad views

[–] WALLACE@feddit.uk 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I was researching new vacuum cleaners recently, and found one of those websites that allegedly test and compare different ones.

One of the entries had wording to the effect of "This vacuum cleaner may have a weight of , and might have feature " etc.

It was fucking AI generated garbage that didn't even know anything about the vacuum cleaner so it started speculating.

[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

yea. for larger purchases it's worth a trip to the library and ask them to see the consumer reports magazines for vacuums (or whatever you're looking for). some libraries have them for in-house use only because they're stolen so frequently

edit: just saw you're in UK; no idea if the thievery applies to your libraries or not

[–] WALLACE@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago

Never even thought of that! We have a well known household review magazine here called "Which?" but I always used to turn my nose up at the idea of paying for reviews when I can just go on the internet and find semi-trustworthy reviews for free. Looks like those days are gone now.

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago

Some libraries also have access to Consumer Reports online, accessible via the library's network (or maybe also via a library card + link from the library site? I dunno, it's been a while since I worked in a public library.)

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I read one more article and get to the first subheading titled “The Investigation: Hyperbolic Subheading” I’m going to delete the whole thing.

It’s so fucking annoying to read, and you know 100% is an AI title because nobody writes that way.

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

That and "[Subject]: Unraveling the Mystery" is so infuriating.

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

That's pretty much what it is. Looking up song lyric meanings is a crapshoot, too.

I was looking up "People Watching" by Sam Fender and all the AI generated articles were saying he was singing about a lover that he lost. Looked up the song on Wikipedia and it said that he was actually singing about his mentor being in palliative care as well as a criticism of the healthcare industry.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago

That's called "content marketing"

[–] carrylex@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ragebait trash article

  1. Why not link the original source? Axios
  2. Apparently the "study" used this "AI detector"

All "AI detectors" are crap and this detector is no different.

But why? Well I just put the first 3 paragraphs of the GDPR into it and it said it was 100% AI generated.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

One: the original Axios article requires you to log in.

Two: The researchers were aware of the limits of AI detectors, and tested the one they used. From the article:

We should also take the judgments of AI detectors with a grain of salt, since their reliability is up for question. In its own testing of Surfer’s accuracy, Graphite had the detector analyze a sample of AI-generated articles and another sample of human articles, finding that it labeled human-written articles as AI-made 4.2 percent of the time — a common problem with these tools — but only mistook AI-written articles as human 0.6 percent of the time.

And really, judging from the quality of search results these days, I would have expected a lot more than 50% of new online articles to be AI generated, so from that standpoint the article might be good news 😆

[–] carrylex@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

One: the original Axios article requires you to log in.

I can read the entire article without any login.

Anyway here's an archived version without authwall: https://archive.is/31K69

Me too. I have to enter my email to get access to the full article.

[–] RagnarokOnline@programming.dev 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Oh shit, we bout to go back to talking to each other in person again?

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago
 Ha ha that would be most fun, human connections with other humans, ha ha
[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sure. Also neighbours rumours are a very effective way to stay connected with what happen in the world and have very real news.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have created several dumb little web pages on various free hosts. They are not AI contents. They either don’t get indexed by search engines, or don’t get returned in the results. But search results return plenty of AI garbage.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago

Google SEO.

[–] PacMan@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

/me Looks at my YouTube feed these days……