Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

Last week’s thread

(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this)

    • Soyweiser@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Instead of improving LLMs, they are working backwards to prove that all other things are actually word prediction tasks. It is so annoying and also quite dumb. No chemisty isn’t like coding/legos. The law isn’t invalid because it doesn’t have gold fringes and you use magical words.

    • gerikson@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      This is just standard promptfondler false equivalence: “when people (including me) speak, they just select the next most likely token, just like an LLM”

    • YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      The problem is that there could be any number of possible next words, and the available results suggest that the appropriate context isn’t covered in the statistical relationships between prior words for anything but the most trivial of tasks i.e. automating the writing and parsing of emails that nobody ever wanted to read in the first place.

    • swlabr@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      None of these fucking goblins have learned that analogies aren’t equivalences!!! They break down!!! Auuuuuuugggggaaaaaaarghhhh!!!