Let’s not. I’d like you to tell me what I got wrong. I described the output of LLMs as “a bunch of pablum [which means ‘trite, insipid, or simplistic writing or speech’] that sounds convincing and sycophantic[.]”

So do you want studies that show they product pablum, studies that show their output sounds plausible and convincing even when it’s wrong, or studies that show they’re trained for sycophancy?

What I posted was correct.

Because I’m capable of reading chat logs and research posted by humans. I follow this stuff closely, because I’m a software developer and it impacts my career. I don’t have to use LLMs to understand how they work and what they do.

I’m considering moving much of my 401K to the emerging markets equity fund. Not much exposure to AI there.

I’m… not? I don’t touch the stuff.

You’re right, it responds with a bunch of pablum that sounds convincing and sycophantic, too.

Oh boy! Another app that might randomly delete important files or send fake tips to police departments because it’s driven by a statistical token generator! I can’t wait to never install it! Yippee!

If we ever manage to get the country back, we need to immediately ban AI-created political advertisements, and put teeth into the law.

Boom Bubble. It’s not a boom, it’s an economic bubble, propped up with circular financing instigated by NVIDIA.

Sure, but how likely is that?

I’m 100% positive they’re not reading my ChatGPT logs.

(I don’t use ChatGPT, and neither should anyone else.)

What we want is software that behaves predictably. Since LLMs don’t do that, we don’t want them or their “agents.”

For fuck’s sake.

Next week’s headline will be something like, “Gizmodo readership drops 46% as garbled, incoherent, AI-generated content floods formerly-useful news website.”