this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2026
1160 points (98.5% liked)

Memes

17352 readers
1443 users here now

Post memes here.

A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.

An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.


Laittakaa meemejä tänne.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I'm sure this is meant as a joke. But, really, prompts are the only part of AI art that is actually creative. Especially if someone has been trying to fine tune what they want for a while, the prompt might actually have something interesting in it.

Even though memes are shared as images, it's often the text that's the important and funny bit. The meme image is just context for the words.

I'm not saying I'm actually interested in reading people's AI prompts. But, there might be an interesting idea in that prompt that the person could express in a way that's not boring and soulless like GenAI tends to be.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This came up back on Reddit in the "what's that book?" sub. Someone posted asking about a book; they had 6 lines of preamble about why they wanted to reread this, and 55 lines that were an excerpt from the book. This is normally a slam dunk--it's pretty trivial to search for literal text. But nobody could find it. Discussion with the user led to the revelation that they'd asked AI about a book and described a scene they remembered, and the AI had responded with a title and "excerpt" matching what the user described. But then the user still couldn't find the book, so they posted the "excerpt" to the subreddit. I.e., they were asking for a book containing an AI hallucination, rather than just describing the book to us the way they had to the AI. In fact the story they were searching for was "Harrison Bergeron," one of the most commonly asked-about things on the subreddit, but nobody recognized it until we understood that the excerpt was slop made up in response to a scene they misremembered as part of the story.

It's a frustrating time to be a human on the internet.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Man, that sucks. It's really annoying how sycophantic these companies have made their chatbots, which makes this worse.

But, I think by the very nature of how chatbots work, you can't fix that problem. Chatbots simulate what text is likely to follow other text.

If someone online has definitely read a book that really exists, and they describe a scene they remember from that book, the clear pattern online is that someone will say "Oh yeah, that's the book X by author Y". Some people might say "I've never heard of that book", but it's likely they might just not say anything. If we're looking at a kind of forum with upvotes and downvotes, the person who found the real book will be the most upvoted.

So, that's the pattern the LLM trains on. It knows that when someone posts a question like that, the best answer is one where someone names the book and types out the passage in the book.

It would be nice if the chatbot would instead say "I don't know that book" or "That book doesn't exist".

But, it can't do that, because it doesn't "know" anything. Everything the chatbots put out is a hallucination. It's just that some hallucinations are more useful. It has been trained millions of times on patterns when the passage someone remembers is "It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times", so when it hallucinates about that sequence of words, its hallucination is bound to be more helpful. But, if what someone remembers doesn't exist, or is obscure enough that it's not in the training data, things break. Then it follows the general pattern used for every other book, and comes up with a "useful" answer that doesn't match any actual book.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's definitely in the nature of the current-gen systems. It's possible to imagine other ways to train chatbots that wouldn't favor bullshitting in the same way, though. The way they currently are isn't a way they necessarily have to be.

Anyway, it's very clearly a case where it would have been better to cut out the middleman and just share the prompt, which was my point in sharing it.

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

It’s possible to imagine other ways to train chatbots that wouldn’t favor bullshitting in the same way, though

How? The way they work is that they predict the next word (token). They don't know anything. So, when someone says "what's the book that features an X doing Y and has a Z that looks like a Q" the process is basically "if this were a forum post, what's the next word that's likely to appear, what's the one after that, what's the one after that".

If the scene being described is something from Harry Potter that has been discussed endlessly on the web, it's likely to predict next words that end up being helpful. If the scenario being described has never been described before, there's no way for it to say "aha, this book doesn't exist!" Instead it just invents a plausible conversation between two people about a fictional book.

Now, you could design a filter that sits in front of the LLM that makes things better. It could be designed to recognize quotes, and if it spots a quote, it can "search the web" (or really look through a big index) to see if those words in that sequence have actually been seen before. If not, it could reject the entire response as being a "hallucination".

But, fundamentally, this isn't a problem you can fix through training, because of how LLMs work.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

You can't fix it with a pure LLM, no. But very few of the major models are pure LLMs anymore. They've got LLMs built in to them as subsystems, but they've got control systems layered on top of those to adjust their behaviors. And those don't have to be trained purely with next word prediction.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The problem with that is that, it seems like it will become an unwieldy piece of spaghetti code, even assuming the code wasn't written by LLMs.

An LLM is a crazily complex thing but at least it's text in, text out, one input, one output.

As soon as you start bolting more and more things onto it to deal with special conditions, you have to maintain all those things, and understand how they interact.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 1 points 53 minutes ago

I'm not talking about bolting things together at random. I'm talking about things like mixture of experts or chain of reasoning, which apply structures to coax more rational behavior out of the systems. You do have to generate new bodies of training data for them, but there are ways of doing that algorithmically. This allows them to move away from the strict "regurgitate the Internet" models of the previous versions. There isn't, currently, this kind of structure to drive the systems towards an honest assessment of their own knowledge and limits, but it's basically inevitable that such a system will be developed, because it's a valuable kind of behavior to be able to favor.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think I'd rather read someone's prompt instead of having them paste me the output. I can always run it myself if I want, but a lot of the time I'd rather cut out the AI

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

If you ran it yourself you'd get a different output.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, but if they didn't care precisely about the output, then that doesn't really matter.

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

The point is the output. If they're saying just give me the prompt and if I want I can run it myself. There is a meaningful difference if the output is different.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

I think most of the time that's true. But, not always.

For example, I've seen people put up funny "remixes" of the "distracted boyfriend" meme. A lot of time they take historical figures, or celebrities, or characters from movies, or something that's in the news. Now, I prefer the lo-fi versions of those memes where someone just spends 2 minutes in Paint and slaps a few photos together. I've also seen GenAI versions, and occasionally they're good, even if I have an aversion to GenAI stuff.

Now, if the GenAI prompt were just something like "Distracted boyfriend meme but the boyfriend is Trump, the girlfriend is Lindsay Graham and the other girl is Putin", that might be funny, and you can just know in your head what it looks like. That's even a good lo-fi way to do it when everybody knows the meme well and can just imagine it. But, if you have a specific idea in mind that's hard to convey, it can be different.

Sometimes the prompt is hundreds of words long and has to describe the various people's clothing, their poses, their expressions, then other details like the background, foreground, lighting, etc. Sometimes in that case the result looks really good, and it's really hard to parse that all in your head.

There's an art and a skill to doing the kind of creative writing necessary to generate a good AI image. Sometimes you need to know obscure things like specific hairstyle names, car models, types of furniture, lighting techniques, facial expression details, names of articles of men's and women's clothing, how to describe poses and posture, etc. But, while that might generate an image that's exactly how you imagined, it was never designed for a human to understand, and can be really painful and/or tedious to read.

[–] insanemantis@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, one of the things that I WILL say there's an art to... is trying to get Genmoji to generate emojis of copyrighted things without triggering its programming. All creativity goes into basically doing everything you can to walk around the obvious

[–] tigermountain@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I would actually like to read people's AI prompts.

[–] NotAnOtter@lemmus.org 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

A a series fb post from an elderly lady attempting to prompt facebook into simulating her deceased child.

"Keep it realistic. don't make make them sound too kind."

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

well engineered prompts are like a dive into the "psychology" of whatever AI tool you are using. I like the ones that go like "whatever you do, don't put an elephant in the picture"

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And then an elephant appears because "elephant" is a word in the prompt.

It's interesting because in some ways it's as if the AI models have a "peekaboo" level of understanding of the world.

If your prompt says something like "a man's face is hidden behind his hands", the model goes "aha, I see the word face, I better draw a face", so you have to get tricky and say "a man's hands are held up covering up the frontal area of his head".

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Funny thing is it doesn't happen in LLMs, even if you use couple generations old and in "low effort" settings (which makes mistakes much more often). I don't know if they have multiple layers of LLMs reconciling the output with the prompt (like how DeepSeek filters certain...ahem..."topics")

Makes you wonder if it is an architectural thing. It still used a place holder to refer to the elephant in both cases so maybe the AI generating images just use their best version of "that", don't know.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

It seems to me that whenever something makes the news or becomes a meme, they put in a special effort to make that thing go away. I think that involves things that filter the output. I don't know if that's another LLM layer or what, but some kind of filter (or series of filters) that addresses certain well known bugs. Even if the filter list is thousands of entries long and is basically "if output contains X, reject it and run again", it's probably a relatively cheap part of their pipeline.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

it performs better in language in art they're all pretty inept, the companies thought this would work, but it doesn't, if you say something like ''A painting of a large vivid skull and a dusty old rose'' your going to get generic skulls and roses that won't match up, because that's the visuals it can find with Skull and Rose, it won't give you something atypical.