HedyL

joined 2 years ago
[–] HedyL@awful.systems 8 points 20 hours ago

As I mentioned before, some spammers and scammers might actually need the tech to remain competitive in their markets from now on, I guess. And I think they might be the only ones (except for a few addicts) who would either be willing to pay full price or start running their own slop generators locally.

This is pretty much the only reason I could imagine why "AI" (at least in its current form) might be "here to stay".

On the other hand, maybe the public will eventually become so saturated with AI slop that not even criminals will be able to use it to con their victims anymore.

[–] HedyL@awful.systems 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't understand. Everybody keeps telling me that LLMs are easily capable of replacing pretty much every software developer on this planet. And now they complain that $71 a day (or even $200 a month) is too much for such amazing tech? /s

[–] HedyL@awful.systems 10 points 1 day ago

In my experience, copy that "sells" must evoke the impression of being unique in some way, while also conforming to certain established standards. After all, if the copy reads like something you could read anywhere else, how could the product be any different from all the competing products? Why should you pay any attention to it at all?

This requirement for conformity paired with uniqueness and originality requires a balancing act that many people who are not familiar with the task of copywriting might not understand at all. I think to some extent, LLMs are capable of creating the impression of conformity that clients expect from copywriters, but they tend to fail at the "uniqueness" part.

[–] HedyL@awful.systems 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

maybe they’ll figure a way to squeeze suckers out of their money in order to keep the charade going

I believe that without access to generative AI, spammers and scammers wouldn't be able to successfully compete in their respective markets anymore. So at the very least, the AI companies got this going for them, I guess. This might require their sales reps to mingle in somewhat peculiar circles, but who cares?

[–] HedyL@awful.systems 12 points 2 days ago

It's almost as if teachers were grading their students' tests using a dice, and then the students tried manipulating the dice (because it was their only shot at getting better grades), and the teachers got mad about that.

[–] HedyL@awful.systems 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is, of course, a fairly blatant attempt at cheating. On the other hand: Could authors ever expect a review that's even remotely fair if reviewers outsource their task to a BS bot? In a sense, this is just manipulating a process that would not have been fair either way.

[–] HedyL@awful.systems 7 points 2 days ago

To me, the idea of using market power as a key argument here seems quite convincing, because if there was relevant competition in the search engine market, Google would probably have had much more difficulty imposing this slop on all users.

[–] HedyL@awful.systems 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I disagree with the last part of this post, though (the idea that lawyers, doctors, firefighters etc. are inevitably going to be replaced with AI as well, whether we want it or not). I think this is precisely what AI grifters would want us to believe, because if they could somehow force everyone in every part of society to pay for their slop, this would keep stock prices up. So far, however, AI has mainly been shoved into our lives by a few oligopolistic tech companies (and some VC-funded startups), and I think the main purpose here is to create the illusion (!) of inevitability because that is what investors want.

[–] HedyL@awful.systems 25 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Completely unrelated fact, but isn't the prevalence of cocaine use among U. S. adults considered to be more than 1% as well?

(Referring to this, of course - especially the last part: https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/06/05/generative-ai-runs-on-gambling-addiction-just-one-more-prompt-bro/)

[–] HedyL@awful.systems 30 points 6 days ago

Stock markets generally love layoffs, and they appear to love AI at the moment. To be honest, I'm not sure they thought beyond that.

[–] HedyL@awful.systems 4 points 1 week ago

Yes, they will create security problems anyway, but maybe, just maybe, users won’t copy paste sensitive business documents into third party web pages?

I can see that. It becomes kind of a protection racket: Pay our subscription fees, or data breaches are going to befall you, and you will only have yourself (and your chatbot-addicted employees) to blame.

[–] HedyL@awful.systems 9 points 1 week ago

At this point it’s an even bet that they are doing this because copilot has groomed the executives into thinking it can’t do wrong.

This, or their investors (most likely both).

view more: next ›