Also does anyone remember the time when functional programming was supposed to become standard everywhere by now? I heard about Rust that way first (they didn’t even advertise the memory safety that much back then), and even remembered people begging the D Language foundation for “const by default” and adding
mutableas a keyword alongside the slow deprecation ofconst.Yeah, the hype has died a little now, but over the past decade or so there was definitely a surge. Functional paradigms are definitely useful, but like a lot of things you can take it too far. I think one of my favorite criticisms was that the real world is mutable and has state so most programming languages will have to have that everywhere.
You can get a lot of the good from functional programming in non functional languages just by using immutable data types and pure functions.
I often doing that, I just think dogmatic software development is not good.
I can’t understand how anyone attempts to participate in conversation on that site. People will tell you it’s “building your network” and that it’s “helping your career,” but the reality is it’s just a bunch of business people jerking each other off over words that mean nothing.
the thing is all this tech could actually be used for something good, but instead its used for the dumbest things and is covered in so much hype everyone ends up hating it
maybe NFTs don’t have much of a good use case, but LLMs, big data and blockchains do
You still don’t need a blockchain to track product logistics. This is always gonna be centralised, just use a normal database.
People are so happy to blame AI and LLMs for all sorts of stuff that it looks like they forget what the real problem is. The real problem here is not that it may be written by an AI, but the fact that there are actual people that write like that. That think they sound profound and careful while not scared by change… In general a whole layer of management and wannabes that try to sell an image of being something they are not.
That account might be full of AI generated crap, I didn’t even bother to check it, the problem is not that it is AI, it’s that there are people that really are just like that. Even without LLMs, LinkedIn was already like that. Notice how Hatchins doesn’t say its an AI bot, he just says “this truly shows the LinkedIn experience”.
I’ve gone to check the account, seeing what I saw, I’m leaning on the fact that this might actually be a real person. In fact I hope it is an AI account to create engagement, because such real people make me lose more faith in humanity than any AI would.
Just see his job description, it’s such bullshit chain of nothing:
Empowering B2B Sales & Marketing Teams to Scale with LinkedIn™-Driven Lead Generation & Brand Building Services ▶ Boost Your Sales Pipeline ▶ LinkedIn™ Consulting, Training, and Management Services ▶ LinkedIn™ Top Voice
“B2b sales and marketing teams to scale” ah yes a call centre spending all day harassing businesses and pumping shit google ads.
Bots write the articles, bots post the articles, bots respond to the articles, bots argue with other bots, bots repost bot reactions to bot articles. Bots scrape the internet made up of bots making content for other bots to train itself to act like…uh oh. Uh oh.
Who cares though, did line go up this quarter?
That’s just it: boosting perceived metrics to try to stimulate further engagement
I think that bubble might pop spectacularly, but for me to be correct would have to mean everyone gets sick of this enough to mass disengage.
A lot of us did here is my impression of lemmy, but we’re not…typical? However you see it with us being early adopters of alternatives rejecting the old anchors.
That’s what I like about lemmy, it feels like old reddit again.
The worry is that it feels like we’re moving past a consumer-directed economy and not in the wholesome Soviet five-year-plan way.
The almighty market has figured out how to collude and cram stuff that people don’t want down our throats (what consumer wanted everything to turn into an enshittified subscription?)
Real people may not want AI slop, but if there’s enough of a sense it will make line go up, we’re getting slop.
On the other hand, this factor might be the salvation: the current AI market is full of 2000-era-dot-com business models based on selling at a loss and making it up on the promise of global domination later. If the VC money dries up, and every “delve” costs whatever the actual amount it costs to drain the oceans and oilfields to pump into an array of Quadros plus sufficiently reimbuse all the ghouls that bankrolled the project, maybe the line doesn’t go up anymore.
On the other hand, this factor might be the salvation: the current AI market is full of 2000-era-dot-com business models based on selling at a loss and making it up on the promise of global domination later.
Except of course, that’s all a lie and they can never remotely turn a profit. AI can’t perform anything that’s being promised, it’s not getting cheaper and it doesn’t noticeably improve where it matters.
You can see the cracks starting to form: The classical big tech players are already bailing out of AI-growth, microsoft, oracle, amazon are opting out of their growth and not investing anymore. And of course they are, Amazon pumped over 200 billion into AI, and are turning 5b revenue. Not profit, revenue. They’re not making any profit, despite 200b of investment.
Soon enough, Open-AI too is going to fail under the strain of their immense and constant losses when the people who keep pumping venture capital stop doing that. I’ll eat my hat if they last into 2028.
I feel like we are slowly getting to the situation the Three Stooges were in where they all owe each other money. Bots make the numbers go up which gets investors interested giving money to the company. C levels make money which they invest in other companies who’s numbers are boosted by bots and this cycle begins again.
You owe me $20. Here’s $10, I’ll owe you. But you owe me $20. Here’ $10 I’ll owe you. Here’s the $10 I owe you. And here’s the $10 I owe you.
I do think this is AI, but I don’t think it’s obviously AI. As someone said ChatGPT is probably trained more on formal writing than casual writing, LinkedIn is a place where you want to appear super smart so this is an environment where many will use a more formal style.
It’s more the nothing burger of a comment that gives it away IMO. But then again, the reason people do this I believe is to be visible. If they comment on things it may pop up in their contacts’ feeds, and if it catches the interest of that person it reflects positively on them. If it doesn’t catch the interest of that person, it has still generated visibility for them.
It’s so funny how these “totally real, totally human comments” are always so obviously fake. Who even writes like that?
This is a fondamental aspect of the criticism raised towards the use of non-human content. Perchance.
You can’t just say perchance.
That proves they’re human!
What about accordingly?
Idk, seems similar to how people act on linkedin. I know several people irl who you’d think were bots based on how they write on that site
I just think it’s odd how many verbs chat gpt uses like “crucial”, “essential”, and “leverage”. Like I don’t use that shit in regular conversations or papers. It’s like a small hint that it wants to be caught.
🤓☝️ akshually, crucial and essential are adjectives
And leverage is a noun. OP needs to back to grammar school.
Also a verb, to be fair. 😅
I think my ignorance proves that I’m human ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Leverage can be a verb, but isn’t here
Thank you. I just woke up and was questioning my English skills and my entire reality.
LLMs, in fact, have slop profiles (aka overused tokens/phrases) common to the family/company, often from “inbreeding” by training on their own output.
Sometimes you can tell if new model “stole” output from another company this way. For instance, Deepseek R1 is suspiciously similar to Google Gemini, heh.
This longform writing benchmark tries to test/measure this (click the I on each model for infographics):
https://eqbench.com/creative_writing_longform.html
As well as some some disparate attempts on GitHub (actually all from the eqbench dev): https://github.com/sam-paech/slop-forensics
The training data probably includes a lot more formal writing. As the major selling point of chatgpt is it sounding like it “knows” things. More “complex” verbiage is helpful to that. This type of writing is more common in things like textbooks and scientific writing in general which have been at least part of its training data.
Yeah, it’s overly formal, but I do use each of those in regular conversion, just a lot more sparingly than AI seems to.
It is essential to balance these two things I pulled from glancing at your text because doing this is easier than producing an intelligent response.
Yep, I sure do hate the world. More with each passing day.
deleted by creator
