106
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 Jul 2026
106 points (93.4% liked)
politics
31574 readers
3270 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I value your time and response, but it doesn't match my experience. I am a computer scientist, and have created neutral networks. Just because they aren't structured the same, and have different methodologies, doesn't mean the similarities end at visual representation. The layered digital neurons allow obfuscation of actual processing, there is no hard coded logic as you seem to imply.
And I don't know what models you've been using, but I get a valid, relevant and insightful response 99% of the time, not once every million attempts. Your assertions do not align with my experiences at all.
Generating something that did not exist before IS creation, and it can be innovative. I don't know how you can assert otherwise, unless you've been using very poor excuses for LLMs. I don't see trial and error in responses to my prompts,I see thoughtful, intuitive and insightful responses that demonstrate a level of context inference that couldn't just be random chance.
Perhaps you're familiar with the structural, mathematical and organizational concepts, and you can differentiate their respective methods of operation, but it seems to me like you have faulty information regarding capabilities and the resulting potential usage of LLM models.
Would you be willing to give me examples of things you've attempted that didn't work until after millions of tries, and which model(s) you were using? You seem confident, so I'm wondering where the mismatch is in our mutually shared, individually observed reality.
Dude. Ai is statistical formulas.
Just because it "feels" insightful does not make it anything more than probabilities.
If you create it yourself, you surely understand this.
Ai is a system designed to mimic.
Don't be fooled by a mimic.
You give it "life". You interpret ai as being more than it actually is.
I'm starting to think AI psychosis really is a thing. Way too many people seem to think it's actually alive. Or has consciousness.
It understands nothing. It only regurgitates.
And when I was talking about trial and error I'm referring to the so-called problem solving AI systems being applied to many things.
I never claimed it was alive. I do think you oversimplify it's function, though.
Let me provide an example, and you tell me where the misunderstanding exists?
I take a photo of a wall, and tell a model I'd like a recommendation on color to match the existing palette. It responds with a recommendation that won't clash, but further adds that based on the furniture in the room it suspects the room is used for studying and contemplation. Based on this unprompted observation, it recommends a different specific color, and further adds that the distance to the ceiling is less than standard, so it further recommends incorporating vertical lines into the design to provide the illusion of greater space than is actually available.
I call the additional information insightful, and surmising the purpose of the room based on furnishings, when it was unrelated to the original question, is an example of advanced inference of information. Is it not?
No it's not an example of advance anything.
It pulls information based on what you, a human asked it to do and it used information commonly found on guides. That a human made.
It's a glorified search engine.
I didn't ask it to analyze the purpose of the room, or make a modified recommendation on the determination. It took the initiative to incorporate that information, inferred a conclusion I didn't provide, and further volunteered helpful information wholly unrelated to the prompt.
Of course humans made the original information. It's the culmination of all human knowledge! Are you suggesting that to be doing anything at all impressive, it would need to spontaneously learn what dolphins think and know?
A search engine... You're not even serious. Nevermind. Go back to earning your PhD in psychology and leave us plebians alone.
But it used popular guides online. That a human made.
It didn't think "oh I should really go above and beyond to make sure this person gets the perfect color".
It doesn't have such motivations since it's a probability formula it instead searches reddit comments and popular websites and uses that information.
These are popular in the first place because they provided good information. Ai doesn't pull from a reddit post with 10 downvotes. Or a website with little information and even less traffic.
And This is how dead internet works.
The websites ai stole that information from only invested in making such guides to pull traffic to their site which likely sells something.
When these guides no longer pull in traffic to their store because Google just stole their tutorials or guides (without crediting the humans that made them) , stores will stop creating guides, tutorials and the like.
Why would they invest in creating knowledge when AI is just going to steal it?
They won't.
In a matter of years there will be no new innovation or guidelines made and vetted by humans. Just AI that stole it from AI that stole it from AI ......that stole it from a human who wrote it 10 years ago to the point where the guide isn't even relevant anymore. And AI has added a bunch of made up sounding things at every iteration so it's now all just nonsense.