AI companies and users of AI are littering all aspects of public space with “AI slop”, but does this term reflect what it really is? We have terms like visual pollution, sound pollution, etc. In a way, "AI pollution " seems a proper term, but AI also pollutes meaning, like with AI generated text. Is AI pollution a new form of “microplastics”? Everywhere and in everything?
capitalism is bothering you, not ai. there’s nothing inherently wrong with ai, this “slop” is just the many forms capital can take. it is not much different from terrible film productions created only with the purpose of capital accumulation.
It can be both. I will continue hating billionaires and their shitty ideas. A terrible film can be ignored.
I like to believe that LLMcan be used the right way.
I believe there is a genuine use for them.
The fact hhat now you can probably buy an AI powered trash can or toilet seat, is not the AI’s fault.
I think the very design of LLMs makes them not very useful even when used “correctly”. They are basically machines that are very good at sounding plausible. But they have absolutely 0 way of checking if info is correct or not. It’s just whatever is reinforced the most in their model is treated as correct.
I think the underlying technology likely has uses. But the way it is currently being produced into products is something that, even if you tried to use it correctly, would simply end up tricking you with some plausible bullshit. Maybe you tell it to edit a paper and it decides to “fix” one of your opinions to be the most common one. Maybe you tell it to tell you the nuance behind a historical fact and it makes up a very likely sounding story that is entirely bullshit which you then repeat to someone else without realizing.
The ability it has to sound plausible is its biggest flaw. Because an LLM will VERY rarely if ever say the words, “I don’t know.” You’d basically have to have gone in and coded it to respond to that specific question to respond with “I don’t know”. Otherwise it’ll just make something up.
The problem with the current technology, that the future technology will never be worse than what we have freely available. If you check the last 3 years of development where it was and where it is now - it is worrisome and awesome at the same time.
And human slop isn’t better than AI slop. If you put the same effort in a human product (literally 2 sentence to prompt the AI for results) - the outcome is predictable.
I believe the expression is: shit in - shit out.
So if you are able to spend the time to write an article, ask the ai to proofread it and telling it to show you what it needs to change (you can even adk for ourside links and can verify one by one) - then you will be able manually edit your own document - without any AI slop dripping in.
Is it extra work? Nope - if you get a human proofreading done - you still have to do these changes yourself. And you will be responsible for what you do with the information.
The thing is that we expect AI to do those last steps and making editoral decisions - is our mistake and laziness.
That’s the human slop.
That’s not really what I was getting at.
What I am saying is that LLMs are extremely good at making things sound plausible. That is the issue I was bringing up. LLMs are much better at making things that are incorrect seem correct than many people realize, and people are not infallible.
If you have a human just entirely make something up you can usually tell it is entirely made up if you read it. A human has to put a lot of effort in to make bullshit sound convincing. LLMs do this effortlessly. So when using them it’s easy to make a mistake and let some of the extremely plausible bullshit slip through.
I don’t disagree at all that humans can create bullshit too. My concern is just that LLMs are so good at it that many people get convinced. Just look at all these cases of people using them for normal mundane things who get drawn in and fall into “AI Psychosis”.
I think it is a result of human brains just not being wired to deal with a machine that talks like a person. Psychologically it’s an issue. Even if we logically know it’s just a machine our brains do not. So people end up falling into this trap where they treat it like a person. Then it tells them insane things and they just start believing it.
Even if say 90% of people never had this issue it’s still a problem. If a new drink gave 10% of people who drank it a psychotic break we’d regulate it to hell and back. Put warning labels on everything. Make it prescription only. etc. LLMs are just out there for anyone to pick up and use like there’s no tomorrow. It’s a serious problem.
Agreed. Human brains are not good with AI because we get su mich praise from them And they keep the engagement going with even more praise.
I actually made sure that every model I use don’t fo those, not referencing itself as a person.
It is really addictive to “just ask one more question”.
People will develop emotional bonds to brands “ohh Gemini is so funny!”, “Claude is such a sarcastic asshole”.
And let’s not start on getting lazy. Laziness is evolutionary trait. Using AI is as lazy as it can be.
I am also just concerned that it’s being used a substitute for human connection. With the way capitalism tends to isolate people and get them feeling all lonely. It’s easy to see how someone could get drawn in and use an LLM as a replacement for a person to talk to.
There were outliners already who were happy with their waifus, marrying their body pillow - and so on.
AI just make it way easier to cut those pesky human connections that require actual effort.
I don’t know that I’d call them happy. More like coping. A substitute will always be just that. I don’t see it as their fault so much as the fault of capitalism. Most people replace human connection with materialism to some degree. Those people just take it to the extreme.
Hate to tell you…
Thanks, I hate it! 😭