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.
Sadly I’m noticing this.
I imagined that, since this is a federated group, people would be more interested in discussing, or at least reading each other’s essay. But looks like I was wrong.
“I can see my code from 3 years ago, was already slop!”
Funny how often I can see that people haven’t read a single phrase in the post. And are probably just going by the headings and title.
“NoT eVeYtHiNg Ai Is SlOp”
Did you fully read the blog post? Because your critic is somewhat far from the discussion on the post.
“will you still think I’m cool if I use AI???”
That’s is not the case, and if you read the post I’ll strongly discuss about the usage and quality and how heavy usage decrease quality.
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.
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?