>Unfortunately, there is so much slop that much of the general public believes that's all there is.

AI slop is human slop. Slop was invented by humans to stuff social network feeds to grab attention and traffic. We are the original slop makers, and the irony is that we were prompted by an AI. A lesser AI, just the feed recommendation Algorithm or Google's ranking Algorithm, they prompted humans to produce slop. Then AI models were trained on it so they can naturally make slop.

In fact the slop comes from the prompter, if they say "draw me a dog" of course it will be generic. But if you write a detailed prompt, 1000 words as they say, you can get an original output, something distinctive. The more spices you put into the soup, the less sloppy it will come out. So only lazy AI use makes slop, when AI users contribute original ideas the output is also distinctively original and good.

Computers are recurrent, the state of a computer at time T+1 depends on its state at time T. Transformers are also recursive, the sequence at time T+1 is generated from sequence at time T.

You don't need to know how the brain works, you just need to see if the transformer can predict brain activity for a given input.

How many did it take you, considering evolution as well? Because LLMs recuperate billions of years of evolutionary adaptation in a few weeks of training, and using millions times less data and energy to do so. The transformer model is not specific to language, it can work in any modality, from text to image, sound, video, robots, and even protein folding.

> What they do resemble is a statistical model with randomness thrown in.

And you are a bag of mostly water and protein.

> I want to point out that for the most part, there are no more newspapers, they are opinion papers. A bare, usually not well investigated set of facts (mostly a press release, unverified) followed by an entire banquet of opinion laid out on a smorgasbord of right wing memes or left wing wishful thinking,

In the previous thread people were saying how you can't trust an AI on legal matters because it hallucinates. Does it mislead more or less than the real press, I wonder?

Don't be mad, this just means there is scope for human work alongside AI. It's a tool, it needs humans.

How many people would develop psychosis even without the AI? Could be that 0.07% would be affected regardless. Others studies show psychosis incidence rates at 0.05% ... 0.09% (measured before LLMs).

Initially I was skeptical of screen typing. Then I got like "maybe with practice", "maybe with swype or a smart LLM".. but no, it fights against you. After 19 years of refinement from Apple screen typing is still a horrible experience. I mistype 50% of the text and have to retype. It also doesn't implement the basic concept of "Select All" so you can't move a source context into a LLM. You can select an article by slowly scrolling 25 screens of text.

Oh yes, I can't understand why people would spend time on the phone unless you are on the shitter or in a bus. For any civilized context you better use a laptop, or a laptop + external screen + mech kb + decent mouse. As god intended.

That MIT study has been doing rounds on the web but it is misleading. The study showed that 56% of the developers had never used Cursor before, and crucially, the one developer with over 50 hours of Cursor experience actually did see positive speedup.

A good question. Another question is - where does this leave open LLMs?

Parents claim:

> ChatGPT counseled Adam away from telling his parents about his suicidal ideation

OpenAI claims:

> ChatGPT warned Raine “more than 100 times” to seek help, but the teen “repeatedly expressed frustration with ChatGPT’s guardrails and its repeated efforts to direct him to reach out to loved ones, trusted persons, and crisis resources.”

What users type into the chat window has an influence. If you come talking about something illegal or damaging, it is not the fault of the model. You gaslighted the model into that response. Walmart does not create new devices/weapons based on customer chats, customers just pick and pay. It is not the same.

If you are right I think all open source developers should also be liable for damages resulting from their bugs. No? Use it at your own risk? Then AI should also have the same terms. They already write under each message: "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info." "Claude can make mistakes. Please double-check responses." "Gemini can make mistakes, including about people, so double-check it."