I call 'em clanker wankers
Grok said nobody needs humans anymore
I’ve sent this to a couple of people where I work: https://dontpastetheai.com/
Several years ago we had our Teams status set to https://nohello.com/ and it seemed to help.
My hot take is that this applies to easily-googleable questions too. I wanted YOU to tell me the circumference of earth, not the scientifically accepted answer. Its called a game, Clark. Sometimes we want whimsy, not scientific nuance.
Jfc that second one I need. I’ve got a guy who just says “hello” and I fucking refuse to reply to that. One day he’s gonna learn to send me the whole damn question in one text. I’ve even told him just send me the whole thing at once and I’ll reply when I can, but he still doesn’t get it.
One day he’s gonna learn […]
if there is one thing that life has taught me, it’s that whenever you find yourself saying “x is gonna learn not to y one day”, no it won’t and it never will, just to spite you.
Literally had a coworker, who unfortunately is a bit above me in the hierarchy, do this.
A system that I basically admin/manage was having issues in a way related to the system she manages. She reported an issue to me and I explained how the systems were related and asked her if she had any ideas on solutions from her end. She responded with fairly detailed instructions about where to find a setting in my system that would solve the problem.
Except the where was kind of simultaneously vague and specific at the same time. The description and name of the setting was very specific (and unfamiliar to me) but the location of the setting was one level too high in the hierarchy - there were no settings there… all settings were one level deeper in the hierarchy in subgroups. So I trolled through them all looking for the setting and couldn’t find it anywhere - I even ran a search and couldn’t find it.
I asked her where she found this setting was documented because it was having trouble finding it… and she responded with the name of a popular AI Chatbot, and three more similar “solutions” that also wasted my time.
chatbots always seem to be like this. Yesterday it was a specific website (for a paid service) with help offered by a chat bot built in to the UI. It was telling me where to find settings with specific instructions that just didn’t match the UI.
One of it’s answers was longwinded instructions on how to build an app that would change the settings via their API. There were a few sentences at the end suggesting a “low code” option where I could change the setting in the web ui.
I think what I was doing is a fairly common use case, a guide explaining how to achieve what I wanted would have been much quicker.
I have had this happen pretty often. I think even the wording used in the “prompt” can also influence whether the chatbot hallucinates a solution.
I remember recently asking a third party’s mandatory chatbot support system (if it can’t help, it then forwards you to a human) whether I was able to change the mapping of some fields in an upload to them without the need for a support agent. It walked me through the process but it didn’t work. Eventually, after three failed chatbot modifications to the instructions, I was forwarded to a human that confirmed I was not, in fact, able to do it myself. Such a fucking waste of time.
What gets me is that despite how often LLMs hallucinate a completely incorrect answer like this, for some reason people still blindly trust them and regurgitate their output without telling you where it came from.
You would think after the first time of encountering an output that is verifiably false people would at least have some hesitancy in the output, but they still keep blindly trusting the language guessing machine.
Next time ask her to screenshot the solution for you or ask her to show you.
She does not have a level of access to the system to implement or even view the settings in the “solution” but she does have access to the support documentation. I was still suspicious from the beginning.
The documentation is also not publicly available so I am guessing the chatbot just used words that would sound feasible from other similar systems’ documentation.
Reverse centaur in full swing.
I work in IT at a little tiny podunk shop and more and more often I remote a customer’s machine and see at least 1 GPT tab open in their browser. I’m going to have the add “Meat proxy” to my vocabulary and I don’t like it, as I’m a big fan of “Meat popsicle” from the Fifth Element.
“Sir do you classify as human?”
“Negative. I am a meat popsicle.”
One GPT window tells nothing abt work ethics.
If you use ChatGPT, you are technically not working.
Why not? It’s not like you ask it something and wait for the answer the next hours. Either the answer is quick or you do something else.
Ya I know, I’m browsing Lemmy while it’s doing it for me.
Could not disagree more.
NPC.
The ‘spiralism’ thing from last year shows how dark this dynamic can get. Though I’m not sure how much of it was organic and how much was a ARG / LARP / collaborative creepypasta by moltbook trolls.
More than useless.
Why not clanker bitch
Knob glazer, grease guzzler, bot licker…
As an advanced wordologist, I think my opinion should have weight:
Knob glazer can refer to humans serving humans. I suggest cogsucker instead.
No wait, cogs are cool at least and not AI, look at steampunk; i suggest transistor sucker instead
Ooo that’s a good one
Toast?
You know, I’ve seen people use the “Chinese Room” thought experiment to argue whether AI is actually thinking or just an intermediary with a workflow, but perhaps we are the ones in the room. Uh oh.
If “the room” refers to companies, which are human-operated paperclip optimizers, then yes.
Gotta 10x every two years, after all.
Applying to jobs in a nutshell.
AI is going to read your resume/cover letter anyways. Just stick the ai slop into the AI slop reader
“Sir, are you classified as human?” “Negative. I am a meat popsicle.”
