282
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
282 points (98.0% liked)
Fuck AI
8574 readers
2589 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
What you're missing is that nothing that we have is "AI" in the true sense of the term. LLMs, ChatGPT, etc. are not "AI," which is just an inaccurate buzzword being thrown around; they're still advanced autocomplete algorithms with no inherent self-motivation, or else their hallucination rate would be continually dwindling without their maintainers' help.
Yeah, you're right. I guess I disagree on some technicalities. I think they are AI and they even have a goal / motivation. And that is to mimic legible text. That's also why they hallucinate, because that text being accurate isn't what it's about. At least not directly. The term is certainly ill-defined. And the word "intelligence" in it is a ruse. Sadly it makes it more likely people anthropomorphize the thing, which the AI industry can monetize... I'm still fairly sure there's reinforcement-learning inside and a motivation / loss-function. It's just not the one people think it is... Maybe we need some better phrasing?
Btw, there's a very long interview with Richard Sutton on Youtube, going in detail about this very thing. Motivation and goals of LLMs and how it's not like traditional machine learning. I enjoyed that video, think he's right with a lot of his nuanced opinions. Spoiler Alert: He knows what he's talking about and doesn't really share the enthusiasm/hype towards LLMs.