I do occasionally use it as a search engine because it does mimic "understanding" a question. Of course, it's always worth following up by asking the AI to cite its sources, though if you are after just a word definition then a normal search engine like DuckDuckGo will suffice.
But if my query is along the lines of "Which test cricketer has the lowest conversion rate of turning 50s into centuries over the last 15 years" then an AI can be helpful in pointing me in the right direction, whereas a normal search engine will yield lots of useless results based on keywords.
Sorry to reply to a comment that is months old, but generative AI just makes things up. Frequently. I don't understand using AI as some kind of search engine (despite it not being one), rather than using an actual search engine or even a normal dictionary. If you search for '[word] definition' in whatever search engine you use it will come up.
Generative AI is a hallucination machine trained on other people's stolen work. Aside from the serious environmental concerns and other ethical problems with it, all the things you seem to be using it for already existed in non-AI forms. Which begs the question, why use AI?
Fair points.
I just use it out of one-click laziness, but that's my failing and nobody else's.
Plus, I'm an early adopter - novelty seeker. I was using email long before my friends even had computers. Mainly emailing my Dad - who was also an early adopter.
I've been playing with AI images for a while.
I asked chat gtp about my use of AI 😉
This was the reply -
"If you use ChatGPT as a replacement for a dictionary to look up the definition of a word, you're arguably using the wrong tool. If you're using it to say, “I understand the dictionary definition, but can you explain why this word has that particular connotation, give me some contrasting examples, and help me figure out which word fits the sentence I'm writing?” that's a substantially different use case.'
As to it being an hallucination machine, I think you are right. Of course, us humans hallucinate too - we just tend to call it being mistaken or remembering incorrectly. But AI can produce those mistakes at enormous scale and with (what appears to be) huge confidence.
We can't afford to ignore it 'tho. It's everywhere already. Especially in the workplace. Better to educate ourselves as to the best ways it can be used.
As to it being an hallucination machine, I think you are right. Of course, us humans hallucinate too - we just tend to call it being mistaken or remembering incorrectly. But AI can produce those mistakes at enormous scale and with (what appears to be) huge confidence.
There's a fractal nature to those errors that are completely different to the pattern of human mistakes.
Sorry to reply to a comment that is months old, but generative AI just makes things up. Frequently. I don't understand using AI as some kind of search engine (despite it not being one), rather than using an actual search engine or even a normal dictionary. If you search for '[word] definition' in whatever search engine you use it will come up.
Generative AI is a hallucination machine trained on other people's stolen work. Aside from the serious environmental concerns and other ethical problems with it, all the things you seem to be using it for already existed in non-AI forms. Which begs the question, why use AI?
Fair points.
I just use it out of one-click laziness, but that's my failing and nobody else's.
Plus, I'm an early adopter - novelty seeker. I was using email long before my friends even had computers. Mainly emailing my Dad - who was also an early adopter.
I've been playing with AI images for a while.
I asked chat gtp about my use of AI 😉
This was the reply -
"If you use ChatGPT as a replacement for a dictionary to look up the definition of a word, you're arguably using the wrong tool. If you're using it to say, “I understand the dictionary definition, but can you explain why this word has that particular connotation, give me some contrasting examples, and help me figure out which word fits the sentence I'm writing?” that's a substantially different use case.'
As to it being an hallucination machine, I think you are right. Of course, us humans hallucinate too - we just tend to call it being mistaken or remembering incorrectly. But AI can produce those mistakes at enormous scale and with (what appears to be) huge confidence.
We can't afford to ignore it 'tho. It's everywhere already. Especially in the workplace. Better to educate ourselves as to the best ways it can be used.
And learning involves making mistakes!
That does not make any sense to me. If you had asked the LLM something like "why is this hymn so popular" or "what is the most popular hymn for a wedding in England" that is the start of a conversation that you could have with a human in real life. You could ask other humans and then think about the different answers and what that tells you. There probably is no "right" answer, whatever the LLM responds is unlikely to impact on a future human conversation.
But in your thread you said "I love this hymn and have been looking up the history of it. This is AI's version, is it close?"
Which is a different starting point for a human conversation. The way you have framed it, the humans who have no access to your prompt are being asked to correct and critique it.
It would have taken a similar amount of time to look up the history of the hymn on Wikipedia and a few more seconds to find other information.
The problem is not "ignoring LLMs", the problem is how we use them when we are also engaging in conversation with humans.
We can't afford to ignore it 'tho. It's everywhere already. Especially in the workplace. Better to educate ourselves as to the best ways it can be used.
And learning involves making mistakes!
You knew you were asking an LLM to give you background on a hymn. You know it is trained on stolen material. You know it is not a trustworthy source of facts. You've been using the internet long enough to know there are actual sources available.
You didn't make a mistake. You made a conscious choice.
Joke from Adele Cliff at the Edinburgh Fringe, via the Guardian:
I hate AI because it keeps trying to steal the jobs I love, like creative writing and being confidently wrong.
We can't afford to ignore [AI] 'tho. It's everywhere already. Especially in the workplace. Better to educate ourselves as to the best ways it can be used.
And learning involves making mistakes!
AI promoters pay a great deal of money to get bots on social media (and some tech journalists) to push the idea that LLMs or generative AI are inevitable, we're all going to be using them for work, you better learn how or you'll be left behind.
There are a few things that machine learning is genuinely useful for. My boyfriend is in software development, and he finds AI very helpful for testing his company's products - it can run a whole bunch of quality control tests and check for bugs much quicker than a human programmer can. I understand some scientists are also using machine learning to analyze their experimental data. Several of these are different types of machine learning - not chatGPT - but they all get lumped together under the title "AI".
I think what we are actually seeing here is the fad phase of the technology. Some middle-aged and older people, like myself, will remember when home microwaves first became available to regular consumers. Here in the US it was in about the mid-1980s. Do you remember for several years there was a rash of microwave-cookery books? There were instructions for "how to cook your Thanksgiving meal in the microwave" and that kind of thing (you Brits can translate that as "how to make a roast dinner in your microwave"). People were trying to use their microwaves to toast bread.
Eventually we all figured out that microwaves are terrible for making toast or roasting meat. They are very good at their limited skill set - boiling a cup of water for tea, or defrosting something quickly, or reheating a plate of leftovers. Those are all great things to use a microwave for. But if you want a good Thanksgiving turkey, you need to roast it in a real oven.
Right now an awful lot of people, encouraged by venture capitalists and wealthy grifters, are using AI to cook their Thanksgiving turkey. I hope people will get tired of trying to use it for "research" and getting a rubbery, dry, salmonella-ridden turkey in their search results instead of a nice juicy well-browned roast that's properly cooked in the middle.
Joke from Adele Cliff at the Edinburgh Fringe, via the Guardian:
I hate AI because it keeps trying to steal the jobs I love, like creative writing and being confidently wrong.
Good one. My dad was excellent at being confidently wrong, and so am I.
As to it being an hallucination machine, I think you are right. Of course, us humans hallucinate too - we just tend to call it being mistaken or remembering incorrectly. But AI can produce those mistakes at enormous scale and with (what appears to be) huge confidence.
There's a fractal nature to those errors that are completely different to the pattern of human mistakes.
We can't afford to ignore it 'tho. It's everywhere already. Especially in the workplace. Better to educate ourselves as to the best ways it can be used.
And learning involves making mistakes!
You knew you were asking an LLM to give you background on a hymn. You know it is trained on stolen material. You know it is not a trustworthy source of facts. You've been using the internet long enough to know there are actual sources available.
You didn't make a mistake. You made a conscious choice.
I'm reminded by wikipedia that using the electromagnetic waves produced by a cavity magnetron to cook food was …
accidentally discovered by Percy Spencer, an American self-taught engineer from Howland, Maine. While employed at Raytheon, he noticed that microwaves from an active radar set he was working on started to melt a candy bar he had in his pocket. The first food deliberately cooked by Spencer was popcorn, and the second was an egg, which exploded in the face of one of the experimenters.
Driven by an "open-source" approach, where AI start-ups share their code, Chinese innovation has been able to catch up faster than expected, despite US export controls over critical advanced chips. Analysts now believe that the next leg of this race will be determined not by who has the best language model, but who can put this intelligence into millions of machines.
Chinese innovation is powering the country's factories faster than expected.
And that is why China is also investing in producing a generation of students learning to imagine what could come next.
At the Hangzhou Technician Institute, for example, children can start from the age of 15. And the scale of what is being taught can feel staggering. There is an entire building dedicated to engines and aeronautics, and a restricted floor for students who will work to keep China at the forefront of processing rare earths - another crucial commodity in the battle with Washington.
As to it being an hallucination machine, I think you are right. Of course, us humans hallucinate too - we just tend to call it being mistaken or remembering incorrectly. But AI can produce those mistakes at enormous scale and with (what appears to be) huge confidence.
There's a fractal nature to those errors that are completely different to the pattern of human mistakes.
Please explain.
There's a predictable nature to the mistakes that a typical human learner will make with a new subject, some areas are predictably harder than others, some things are harder to memorise. As a result, skilled practitioner reviewing a new leaners work quickly learns where to look.
The errors that an LLM make are much more random than this, and especially with any kind of structured task they can make fairly insidious mistakes at different levels of abstraction without any rhyme or reason as to why. It can produce structurally valid text that are strangely lacking in any kind of overall narrative or intent.
Large bodies of text/code etc produced by LLMs tend to be very exhausting to review as a result.
Eventually we all figured out that microwaves are terrible for making toast or roasting meat. They are very good at their limited skill set - boiling a cup of water for tea,
Which ironically is something microwaves are awful at.
Boil water in an electric kettle, which is the right tool for the job, and you get boiling water and a kettle that shuts itself off automatically when the water reaches boiling point. If you use a microwave, then assuming you don't manage to superheat the water and end up with yourself scalded, you're as likely to end up with warm, unboiled water as you are to end up with half a cup of water and a thin layer of water all over the plate.
There are various modes of cooking, depending on the result you want - fast, slow, moist, dry. Microwaves are fast/moist, nearest equivalent steaming or if using fat rather than water, sauté.
They are invaluable for certain processes, often within a recipe that uses others. But recognising that requires IMO human experience.
@Boogie neither of us are in paid employment so I'm not sure of the relevance of the comment about the workplace (and also, there are still many jobs that are unable to be done by AI). Generative AI is actively being pushed for ideological reasons by individuals like Sam Altman rather than being simply another tool like Photoshop. Analytic AI is different and has specific benefits that didn't exist before. There is nothing people use generative AI for that wasn't already being successfully done without it.
Being run by Silicon Valley is harmful and we should not capitulate. It's also concerning seeing how enthusiastically older people are jumping on board with it. In my experience it's Millennials and Gen Z that are the most reluctant to use it.
I'm reminded that in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy there's a telling example of something that is, to all intents and purposes, an AI drinks vending machine, that invariably produces “a liquid which is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea”.
I'm a millennial and have briefly experimented with AI at work, but generally for the purposes of documenting purpose and functionality to inform policy decisions. I've been horrified to discover at least 2 colleagues relying on it for legal opinions, in one case copying it verbatim, without attribution or checking, into information to be sent to a member of the public. I have once or twice explored whether it might help with my work, but given its unreliability even if I could get it to write a document I'd then have to check and make sure all the information is correct, at which point I might as well just write the thing.
I've been horrified to discover at least 2 colleagues relying on it for legal opinions, in one case copying it verbatim, without attribution or checking, into information to be sent to a member of the public.
Having experienced similar things I feel that they highlight the clear failures at work; writing is thinking, reading is also (a different form of) thinking, and simply generating corporate lorem ipsum isn't really doing either.
There was a famous case in 2023 in which AI produced false citations of cases that never existed for a lawyer who then filed them with the court, and got caught. I believe his name was Steven Schwartz?
There was a famous case in 2023 in which AI produced false citations of cases that never existed for a lawyer who then filed them with the court, and got caught. I believe his name was Steven Schwartz?
Yep. (Not to be confused with Stephen Schwartz, the Broadway composer who wrote Godspell, Pippen and Wicked.)
I was surprised that the sanctions he received seemed very light to me.
My sons, their partners and all their friends are Millennials. I'll ask them if they use it in their workplaces at all.
I think lazy people like me tend to use it because it's so much easier than programs like Photoshop.
Of course, you can't win because Photoshop now uses AI. I wonder if Lightroom does too?
I don't know why you keep bringing up your laziness as a defence. Why not choose to be less lazy? Also, I'm a lazy person and I still choose to not use AI because being lazy doesn't mean you can't have particular moral principles.
AI is having real-life devastating consequences for people in communities with data centres. I strongly recommend reading Empire of AI by Karen Hao, which talks about the colonialism aspect of AI. Women are having more miscarriages in places like Uruguay because AI data centres mean there is less access to drinking water. Whole communities in Chile are being destroyed.
So when civilisation falls and our silicon overlords have migrated to Mars (or whatever unfortunate planet takes their fancy), the survivors will have to reinvent the wheel, along with everything else. Because there will be no libraries left to plunder for information on how to start fires without any matches, or how to skin (and first catch) a rabbit.
I'll be all right, I have a facsimile copy of the original Guides Handbook.
My sons, their partners and all their friends are Millennials. I'll ask them if they use it in their workplaces at all.
I think lazy people like me tend to use it because it's so much easier than programs like Photoshop.
Of course, you can't win because Photoshop now uses AI. I wonder if Lightroom does too?
I don't know why you keep bringing up your laziness as a defence. Why not choose to be less lazy? Also, I'm a lazy person and I still choose to not use AI because being lazy doesn't mean you can't have particular moral principles.
AI is having real-life devastating consequences for people in communities with data centres. I strongly recommend reading Empire of AI by Karen Hao, which talks about the colonialism aspect of AI. Women are having more miscarriages in places like Uruguay because AI data centres mean there is less access to drinking water. Whole communities in Chile are being destroyed.
Yes, I need to educate myself. Absolutely. And I have started this process regarding AI.
Lazy isn't a defense, it's a reason.
I'm neuro spicy and my brain is impulsive takes the easiest course.
"Choose to be less lazy" - if only it were so simple!
"If Boogie would just try harder" is the mantra of every teacher I've ever had.
I'm here on the Ship out of interest, community and enjoyment - not to be told off by you. Thank you.
Generative AI, like every other tool, is just a tool. Like all tools it should be used with caution and only when appropriate.
This is not true. If it was "just a tool" AI data centres would not be causing the environmental destruction that they are currently wreaking.
It's still a tool, just a really bad one in any reasonable cost-benefit analysis. This mean the number of cases when it would be "appropriate" tends towards zero.
People under attack sometimes repeat and acknowledge the words others use to attack them as a defence - in the hope that the attackers will be satisfied and appeased and will leave them alone and stop attacking.
Just because I as an AuDHD person might agree with critics and attackers to get them to leave me alone that 'yes I'm untidy, yes I'm lazy' doesn't mean that I am - only that I'm being attacked for how I handled an executive function difference and am now hurting and am hoping that they, the attackers, will back off if I nod vigorously enough and agree with them.
Sure there may be someone else who is also ADHD who is exemplary at doing the thing I didn't because they have a different spiky profile or 'have a system' or the subject is dear to their heart - but they should still back off and not throw around or repeat words which are more macro than microaggressions like 'lazy' when it comes to ADHD. @Pomona I'm talking to you here - please stop it, it's really not a helpful way to approach this.
Posting purely as shipmate -
A post which contravened a policy got missed or got a slow response. I believe the relevant hosts have since got to it.
The post accidentally contravened the policy - it wasnt posted in deliberate contradiction of that policy - so no problem- the poster knows now.
AI is massively controversial and something people like to discuss but that should not be done with an individual poster who is very upset about having mis-posted as the focus. That, in my view, needs not to happen.
I am not an admin but I don't see people asking for a change in policy and the post has been caught and the shipmate is aware of policy, so as a shipmate I would like to ask if Admin could please close the thread so the issues can be separated? People who want to talk about AI could have a general thread somewhere appropriate but it needs not to be focused on a single shipmate who without any ill-intention made a single mis-post.
Sorry for my part in this, Boogie. I didn't realise this was the wrong thread for posting generally about AI - though that's no excuse, and I did wonder why there were two.
@Louise I don't think that @Boogie *is* lazy - I only used the term because she self-described as such first, and I honestly thought that it was just how she was self-identifying because that's what she wrote, and wrote it several times before I did. I used Boogie's own term for herself because I thought that was more appropriate than telling her that how she described herself was wrong. I was sincerely just trying to meet her on common ground, hence me saying that I'm a lazy person in response.
Also like Jane R, I didn't realise that this wasn't the thread for talking about AI generally. As far as I was concerned, I was simply having a normal (albeit Purgatorially-flavoured) discussion about the ethical issues with AI and it was not at all intended as an attack on @Boogie specifically. I'm sorry if Boogie felt attacked or told off because that was not my intention at all, I was just trying to back up my arguments more thoroughly. I realise that this was not the appropriate place for that and I'm sorry for perpetuating that.
Thank you @Pomona. It did rather feel like I was being told off.
Especially as it was a mistake to make that OP using AI - especially when I'd previously said I wasn't going to! But I'd already apologised for that. 🙂
Thank you @Pomona. It did rather feel like I was being told off.
Especially as it was a mistake to make that OP using AI - especially when I'd previously said I wasn't going to! But I'd already apologised for that. 🙂
Yes sorry, I was mentally stuck in Purg Mode and didn't mean for it to come across as personally as it did!
I think the mutilple AI threads in Styx are causing some confusion - the most recent issue raised by Ruth has been dealt with so I am going to close this one.
Comments
But if my query is along the lines of "Which test cricketer has the lowest conversion rate of turning 50s into centuries over the last 15 years" then an AI can be helpful in pointing me in the right direction, whereas a normal search engine will yield lots of useless results based on keywords.
Fair points.
I just use it out of one-click laziness, but that's my failing and nobody else's.
Plus, I'm an early adopter - novelty seeker. I was using email long before my friends even had computers. Mainly emailing my Dad - who was also an early adopter.
I've been playing with AI images for a while.
I asked chat gtp about my use of AI 😉
This was the reply -
"If you use ChatGPT as a replacement for a dictionary to look up the definition of a word, you're arguably using the wrong tool. If you're using it to say, “I understand the dictionary definition, but can you explain why this word has that particular connotation, give me some contrasting examples, and help me figure out which word fits the sentence I'm writing?” that's a substantially different use case.'
As to it being an hallucination machine, I think you are right. Of course, us humans hallucinate too - we just tend to call it being mistaken or remembering incorrectly. But AI can produce those mistakes at enormous scale and with (what appears to be) huge confidence.
We can't afford to ignore it 'tho. It's everywhere already. Especially in the workplace. Better to educate ourselves as to the best ways it can be used.
And learning involves making mistakes!
There's a fractal nature to those errors that are completely different to the pattern of human mistakes.
That does not make any sense to me. If you had asked the LLM something like "why is this hymn so popular" or "what is the most popular hymn for a wedding in England" that is the start of a conversation that you could have with a human in real life. You could ask other humans and then think about the different answers and what that tells you. There probably is no "right" answer, whatever the LLM responds is unlikely to impact on a future human conversation.
But in your thread you said "I love this hymn and have been looking up the history of it. This is AI's version, is it close?"
Which is a different starting point for a human conversation. The way you have framed it, the humans who have no access to your prompt are being asked to correct and critique it.
It would have taken a similar amount of time to look up the history of the hymn on Wikipedia and a few more seconds to find other information.
The problem is not "ignoring LLMs", the problem is how we use them when we are also engaging in conversation with humans.
You knew you were asking an LLM to give you background on a hymn. You know it is trained on stolen material. You know it is not a trustworthy source of facts. You've been using the internet long enough to know there are actual sources available.
You didn't make a mistake. You made a conscious choice.
I hate AI because it keeps trying to steal the jobs I love, like creative writing and being confidently wrong.
AI promoters pay a great deal of money to get bots on social media (and some tech journalists) to push the idea that LLMs or generative AI are inevitable, we're all going to be using them for work, you better learn how or you'll be left behind.
There are a few things that machine learning is genuinely useful for. My boyfriend is in software development, and he finds AI very helpful for testing his company's products - it can run a whole bunch of quality control tests and check for bugs much quicker than a human programmer can. I understand some scientists are also using machine learning to analyze their experimental data. Several of these are different types of machine learning - not chatGPT - but they all get lumped together under the title "AI".
I think what we are actually seeing here is the fad phase of the technology. Some middle-aged and older people, like myself, will remember when home microwaves first became available to regular consumers. Here in the US it was in about the mid-1980s. Do you remember for several years there was a rash of microwave-cookery books? There were instructions for "how to cook your Thanksgiving meal in the microwave" and that kind of thing (you Brits can translate that as "how to make a roast dinner in your microwave"). People were trying to use their microwaves to toast bread.
Eventually we all figured out that microwaves are terrible for making toast or roasting meat. They are very good at their limited skill set - boiling a cup of water for tea, or defrosting something quickly, or reheating a plate of leftovers. Those are all great things to use a microwave for. But if you want a good Thanksgiving turkey, you need to roast it in a real oven.
Right now an awful lot of people, encouraged by venture capitalists and wealthy grifters, are using AI to cook their Thanksgiving turkey. I hope people will get tired of trying to use it for "research" and getting a rubbery, dry, salmonella-ridden turkey in their search results instead of a nice juicy well-browned roast that's properly cooked in the middle.
Very true!
Only a kettle will suffice. 🙂
Good one. My dad was excellent at being confidently wrong, and so am I.
Please explain.
Yep - and a lazy one at that.
I'm reminded by wikipedia that using the electromagnetic waves produced by a cavity magnetron to cook food was …
It's interesting how new technologies have a fad phase. The 'robot games' in China come to mind.
"China's humanoid robots are stealing the show, but a quieter machine revolution is unfolding" - BBC News https://share.google/jAR2ouCHosrVzyPzq
There's a predictable nature to the mistakes that a typical human learner will make with a new subject, some areas are predictably harder than others, some things are harder to memorise. As a result, skilled practitioner reviewing a new leaners work quickly learns where to look.
The errors that an LLM make are much more random than this, and especially with any kind of structured task they can make fairly insidious mistakes at different levels of abstraction without any rhyme or reason as to why. It can produce structurally valid text that are strangely lacking in any kind of overall narrative or intent.
Large bodies of text/code etc produced by LLMs tend to be very exhausting to review as a result.
Which ironically is something microwaves are awful at.
Boil water in an electric kettle, which is the right tool for the job, and you get boiling water and a kettle that shuts itself off automatically when the water reaches boiling point. If you use a microwave, then assuming you don't manage to superheat the water and end up with yourself scalded, you're as likely to end up with warm, unboiled water as you are to end up with half a cup of water and a thin layer of water all over the plate.
They are invaluable for certain processes, often within a recipe that uses others. But recognising that requires IMO human experience.
I knew the Brits would be clutching their pearls and derailing the thread.
But all other things being equal kettles boil slower in the US due to the lower mains voltage.
Being run by Silicon Valley is harmful and we should not capitulate. It's also concerning seeing how enthusiastically older people are jumping on board with it. In my experience it's Millennials and Gen Z that are the most reluctant to use it.
I think lazy people like me tend to use it because it's so much easier than programs like Photoshop.
Of course, you can't win because Photoshop now uses AI. I wonder if Lightroom does too?
Having experienced similar things I feel that they highlight the clear failures at work; writing is thinking, reading is also (a different form of) thinking, and simply generating corporate lorem ipsum isn't really doing either.
I found this site which tracks AI hallucinations associated with legal decisions (so not all pleadings, etc.) https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/
I was surprised that the sanctions he received seemed very light to me.
This is not true. If it was "just a tool" AI data centres would not be causing the environmental destruction that they are currently wreaking.
I don't know why you keep bringing up your laziness as a defence. Why not choose to be less lazy? Also, I'm a lazy person and I still choose to not use AI because being lazy doesn't mean you can't have particular moral principles.
AI is having real-life devastating consequences for people in communities with data centres. I strongly recommend reading Empire of AI by Karen Hao, which talks about the colonialism aspect of AI. Women are having more miscarriages in places like Uruguay because AI data centres mean there is less access to drinking water. Whole communities in Chile are being destroyed.
So when civilisation falls and our silicon overlords have migrated to Mars (or whatever unfortunate planet takes their fancy), the survivors will have to reinvent the wheel, along with everything else. Because there will be no libraries left to plunder for information on how to start fires without any matches, or how to skin (and first catch) a rabbit.
I'll be all right, I have a facsimile copy of the original Guides Handbook.
Yes, I need to educate myself. Absolutely. And I have started this process regarding AI.
Lazy isn't a defense, it's a reason.
I'm neuro spicy and my brain is impulsive takes the easiest course.
"Choose to be less lazy" - if only it were so simple!
"If Boogie would just try harder" is the mantra of every teacher I've ever had.
I'm here on the Ship out of interest, community and enjoyment - not to be told off by you. Thank you.
It's still a tool, just a really bad one in any reasonable cost-benefit analysis. This mean the number of cases when it would be "appropriate" tends towards zero.
Just because I as an AuDHD person might agree with critics and attackers to get them to leave me alone that 'yes I'm untidy, yes I'm lazy' doesn't mean that I am - only that I'm being attacked for how I handled an executive function difference and am now hurting and am hoping that they, the attackers, will back off if I nod vigorously enough and agree with them.
Sure there may be someone else who is also ADHD who is exemplary at doing the thing I didn't because they have a different spiky profile or 'have a system' or the subject is dear to their heart - but they should still back off and not throw around or repeat words which are more macro than microaggressions like 'lazy' when it comes to ADHD. @Pomona I'm talking to you here - please stop it, it's really not a helpful way to approach this.
Posting purely as shipmate -
A post which contravened a policy got missed or got a slow response. I believe the relevant hosts have since got to it.
The post accidentally contravened the policy - it wasnt posted in deliberate contradiction of that policy - so no problem- the poster knows now.
AI is massively controversial and something people like to discuss but that should not be done with an individual poster who is very upset about having mis-posted as the focus. That, in my view, needs not to happen.
I am not an admin but I don't see people asking for a change in policy and the post has been caught and the shipmate is aware of policy, so as a shipmate I would like to ask if Admin could please close the thread so the issues can be separated? People who want to talk about AI could have a general thread somewhere appropriate but it needs not to be focused on a single shipmate who without any ill-intention made a single mis-post.
Also like Jane R, I didn't realise that this wasn't the thread for talking about AI generally. As far as I was concerned, I was simply having a normal (albeit Purgatorially-flavoured) discussion about the ethical issues with AI and it was not at all intended as an attack on @Boogie specifically. I'm sorry if Boogie felt attacked or told off because that was not my intention at all, I was just trying to back up my arguments more thoroughly. I realise that this was not the appropriate place for that and I'm sorry for perpetuating that.
Especially as it was a mistake to make that OP using AI - especially when I'd previously said I wasn't going to! But I'd already apologised for that. 🙂
Yes sorry, I was mentally stuck in Purg Mode and didn't mean for it to come across as personally as it did!
Doublethink, Styx Hosting