this post was submitted on 18 May 2026
762 points (95.7% liked)

memes

21287 readers
1979 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Too spicy?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 91 points 1 day ago (45 children)

Do you belive current iteration of AI has the potential to become superhuman? I think it's like trying to get to the moon by building a better ladder.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 hours ago

No, I think the overall concept isn't bad, but we're deep sea tube worms trying to do brain surgery.

We got surprising results my mimicking life. Possibly for the same reasons it works for life, but there's still a lot more to it. All our iterations now are just using programming and resources to make use of what we found to do some of our cognitive work for us.

The whole weighted model concept was a step in the right direction and some of it may actually be how life operates, but that alone (or even wrapped in the smartest code we can think of) isn't going to get us to AI.

[–] msage@programming.dev 57 points 1 day ago (10 children)

LLMs are a dead end.

Their only value is showing how fucked up our society is.

Suddenly and very publicly copyrights only matter if you're poor, electricity is wasted on the poor, water is not for the poor... it's always been like this, but the LLM bandwagon really showcased all of that in one shiny package.

The only good thing could be gathering public knowledge into a single space, but they don't even do that.

So it's all net negative in my eyes.

[–] Aedis@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I respectfully disagree with the dead end part of your argument. A dead end would be if they provided no value.

While the environmental and social downsides are massive negatives on the tech, it is actually doing something.

Past iterations are completely useless, but more recent iterations show us a more polished side to LLMs that actually do enhance how we do some things.

Is it worth it? My gut says no, but its both too late and too early to call it. (late in the environmental and societal impact, too early in the tech iteration)

As far as the "dead end" argument goes, I have to say that's a hard disagree. Humanity is filled with technological advances that "stand on the shoulders of giants" and improve on previous techs. Even if LLMs themselves don't prove to be the thing that we've been promised by the people driving it, it is taking us one step closer to AGI (whether that's a good goal or not, that's still up for debate)

From here on, I think there's still quite a bit these models can improve, and I hope a lot of that improvement goes into making it more energy efficient, more water efficient in turn.

If by a dead end you mean that we can't reach an AGI from an LLM, I think that's correct, however an LLM might help us figure out what is needed for an AGI.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago (4 children)

You didn’t actually say what you think LLM’s are enhancing. Just that you feel that they are. Honestly I think that’s the biggest part, they’re big shiny things that look like they’re doing a lot. But they actually aren’t. LLMs are chatbots and they will never be anything more than just chatbots.

[–] Aedis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Summarizing and finding codeblocks. Fucking A+.

So much so, that it's pretty much 100% necessary in software engineering now. And I hate it that I'm forced to use something that I know is so detrimental in other aspects.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’ve been a software developer for over 15 years, I’ve never used one. It’s not necessary at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I used it to make a dialog system in a video game. It made it, but it was needlessly complex and ten times as long as the code needed to be. No thanks, i don't need a buggy mess that's unmaintainable.

[–] Aedis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Note: I didn't say - use it to code.

But real question for you. Is the alternative you wouldn't have done that at all?

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Yes, I've made a dialog system before. The context I found myself in was a game jam with a short amount of time using an engine I hadn't used in years.

Thought it would help instead of following a tutorial. But honestly, by the end of the jam, I really didn't feel like rewriting the dialog system bcz it was so messy.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] msage@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If it was used in a research as a step? Perchance.

Pouring everything we have into it? Dumbest fucking decision of our lives.

We could have put all that effort into previous versions and could tweak them enough to gather perhaps slightly worse results, maybe even better, we will never know.

Making this shit more efficient is to me also dumb.

What in the fuck are we doing that requires this shit? It helps with coding? We can make better frameworks. Translations? We had those before, even TTS. Emails? Just use a template. The other side is not reading that slop anyway. So what exactly are we doing here?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

On crab god you didn't actually just say that

[–] msage@programming.dev 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

you can't just say perchance

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

No, the tech ran into diminishing returns. That's been studied. In the end you're adding another datacenter just to get 1% better output.

[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 7 points 1 day ago

Regardless, if someone's trying to get to the moon so they can enslave us all and rule over us from their moon fortress, I don't care if all they've got is a really long ladder, I'm breaking the ladder.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

No but if you don't try, you won't find where the Goblins are hiding.

[–] Akh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Dont know, dont care, dont want it

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (39 replies)