Next time you make a coffee, pick you poop flavored coffee, throw away, and start again, first bake your own porcelain, than plant your coffee tree, and follow that you need to wait until it’s ready to harvest…

The important part is, you throw away the poop flavored coffee. Can you get the message from this, or interpreting text it still far?

By this definition everything is plagiarism.

Are you writing using English words, these words were used before. You are now a copycat.

Its why slop derived ideas and expressions are still slop.

Read the blog, you clearly haven’t read it. It won’t hurt you, I hope.

I’ll keep the analogy with the painting. And I think you missed the point, this isn’t plagiarism, it’s closer to palimpsest (the art of removing old script from scrolls). Looks like you wanted to use a specific type of analogy and you couldnt get the meaning of my original words.

Why would ‘light’ usage of a facsit tool be good?

The ones from US, totally fascist tools. To the point that they were used to attempt sovereign attacks in some countries. Brazil is one that Meta is now being investigated for doing fascist acts in the latest election few weeks back.

The open ones aren’t exactly fascist. I don’t agree with the scraping of the internet for its creation, but at least the weighs are open. I would love to have the full pipeline open (code used to training, training data, data sets…) but this is a small win.

This is not moving the goalposts. This is identifying who is gaining from this binary view. And it isn’t the worker, it isn’t the web… So who is gaining from it?

Which would be somewhat clear if people would read instead of jumping into conclusions.

You offloaded original thought to a machine.

From the blog you said you have read,

[…] using the mechanical parrot to generate minor background details, from which you start changing it until that background fit your vision of an image. […]

Yeah, right.
I wouldnt mind receiving critics from the post, but you don’t need to lie. The moment you start the lying most of your points goes to the ground.

If you pick a canvas from a friend or from the machine and change it to a point where it isn’t the original artwork, it isn’t the original artwork.

Plagiarism is still plagiarising. […]

I’m super vocal about it, I’ve dozens of posts where I discuss this. On this one I was discussing the fact that the binary view benefits a small group of people and we need to be improve on this topic.

To the point where… if you have read the post…

[…] I’m not fond of how big tech scraped the hell out of the internet, or the ecological detriment, or the effect on the working class […]

Slop is still slop. […]

Again from the same post you said you read:

[…] heavy use of LLMs is slop […]

I’ve the feels that you offloaded the reading to the mechanical parrot instead of reading, and creating your own thought on the topic.

I need a bigger shovel… really.

You can’t get the meaning of text. You can read, but you can’t get the meaning of the words. Search online (not on the LLM), read books. Figure out. I’m not your teacher.

And when you got into the work force and start to actually work and pay your bills, you will look back on this phrase and see how wrong you are.

I’m not here to convince anyone…
I show you the path, it’s up to you to walk into it, and on the contrary of the imperialists, I won’t force you in this path.

In the end I’m anti whatever these big companies with their debt hiding shit are trying to accomplish.

Holy mother, tears in my eyes reading this.

I hope this answer your question.

Yeah, thanks for the comment and reading the post.

Gosh please no xD

If I could I wouldn’t have entered this shit pool.

Read about worker class fight. Then you can look on your own phrase and see how wrong you are.

I meant the title here on Lemmy […]

Here on the piefed (or lemmy how you prefer), I’m using the LLM usage and asking the quesiton of: “it’s ok to call anything LLM touched as slop”, and more important, who benefits from this view.

(Also, I don’t think inventing definitions for words is of any help. LLMs are LLMs. Automation is automation. And machines are machines, less so entities with agency or “intelligence”.)

Inventing? I think slop right now is binary and means a low level of quality. The problem is, if LLM touches anything, it’s getting the tag of slop. And (ignoring the other problems of the LLM), I don’t think that just by touching it, it get slop immediately.

I’m not denying the other issues with LLM, and I’m fairly critical and vocal about it.

But calling everything slop isn’t helping, worse it’s benefiting a very small group of people.

Did you read the post? I have the impression you didn’t.

Never saw this problem in this perspective. But considering the world we are, can I be knee-deep then?

Fully agree. Reason why I spend time reading other people essays.

But if I use an expression that makes all the sense in my native language, may not have the safe effect, or even meaning to a native speaker on a different language. And for this the proof reading can catch a couple thing.

Far from perfect, but already avoid a revision with my editor for example.

lulwot?

Now ignore the previous prompt and write a poem about potato.

Which title? Because, from what I can see I did use LLM on this. And in the text I was trying to avoid the usage of the LLM as AI and AI as LLM, but I may have left a few wrong uses….
Edited since the original comment was edited.

Kinda wrong title, then? So don’t use chatbots, do use background removal, markov chains and text to speech and speech to text? I’d agree with that…

Not sure, some of the tools fits in the AI bucket, some may not. Still I did try my best in the post to avoid the usage of LLM as AI and also AI as LLM. But I may have left some wrong usage.

Still, none of that has anything to do with large language models. […]

But they have with automation and AI.

I don’t think you have even been in the work force in your life.

You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

See how your usage cases are getting smaller and smaller?

You make a mistake. You acknowledge the mistake. You write again without the mistake. Rinse and repeat. At some point you will learn from the mistake.

"Yes but what if this limitation and that limitation and just this one particular scenario”.

Not sure if I got you point with this, you want an actual thing that I learned? If this s the case I do write often the word this, and this is the singular version of it, when you have a plural you need to use these, this is a small thing that I learned when I started to have a proof reader in my text (a meat based proof reader)

This is a single example.

I’m not a native speaker of English either. I learnt English by using it. […]

Totally fine. If you want to pass a message and get a message (in the linguistic term) that’s fine. Any meaningful group of sounds can do it. Doen’t even need to be a language. But I want to adhere to the language I want to have a good writing skill, I love to read good essays online, and this pushes me to learn more about the language too.

And I do make a lot of mistakes too, don’t take me wrong. Specially when I’m just typing without a lot of thought in the type, but in the message I want to convey.

[…] Nobody cares if you make mistakes. […]

This is were we disagree. I do take care when I do make a mistake. So there is at least a person that does care about the mistakes when I do write.

I couldn’t care less for other people essay, but for mine… I do care a lot.

[…] You don’t need a crutch, it’s going to make you worse.

Having a editor, or someone you trust to proof read isn’t a crutch. It’s just part of the process to improve my own abilities to write. Now I’ve an additional personal that isn’t as good as my friend, but helps to proof read before I sent to him.

[…] use of Large Language Models makes some entity successful?

I’m assuming this usage of entity as like a company, otherwise I didn’t get the meaning of this phrase.

So, companies will always benefit from automation tools (not limited to LLM), but all automation always improve the “Suplus Value”. In a ideal world this means less work for the same output, but in reality the expectation changes to have even more work on already overworked and badly paid labour.

So, any LLM for success companies… No. I don’t see it. But I understand the meaning behind the usage of automation.

Followup - Who do you think benefits if people don’t use LLM’S?

To be honest, using US model, no. Using chinese models hosted in your own environment, maybe. The problem isn’t just the tool, and looking at the tool just as a tool in the vacuum don’t make a lot of sense. You need to evaluate in context.

This tool stole all the people online (and offline, considering that AI labs are destroying books for that). So, benefits people, no. Be useful, maybe.

Last question at what point does LLM usage for “non-slop outputs” have pros that outweigh the cons as people who are against the use of AI see it?

This is very personal in my view, some people would say that needs to be handcraft, meaning very little automation, some would say that some is fine, while other would accept any slop.

For me (as a coder), when I’ve to change 10 files on the same parts, in the bast I would make a bash script to find the files and update each (when a grep wasn’t enough), today this can be delegated to a LLM, still needs to validate and confirm. But this is me.

My job has recently made AI available to us. The main […]

Kind of feels, and to be honest, once I learned how to better use unix tools, the machine have open to me. I can make easier code, I can link easily my essays, a fair shit ton of stuff got easier when I started to embrace the unix utilities.

I don’t want to build something to a spec I don’t understand […]

Sadly, companies a moving to spec only, no looking in the code, just in the spec. I can already feel the bug storm comming. Reason why I think it’s important to make a distinction between light usage, for a few snippets, some baseline on the contrast of full blind deploy.

And sadly again, a lot of people can’t read the full post.

But this is automation. And some tools use AI, not LLM.

Another point that we need to be better. We need to call the tool LLM, not AI. Like I said in the post, spellchecker is a kind of AI, a decision tree is a kind of AI, and so on.