There is literally not a chance that anyone downvoting this actually read it. It’s just a bunch of idiots that read the title, like the idea that llms suck and so they downvoted. This paper is absolute nonsense that doesn’t even attempt to make a point. I seriously think it is ppprly ai generated and just taking the piss out of idiots that love anything they think is anti-ai, whatever that means.
Comment on I Will Fucking Piledrive You If You Mention AI Again — Ludicity
AIhasUse@lemmy.world 3 months agoIt blatantly contradicts itself. I would wager good money that you read the headline and didn’t go much further because you assumed it was agreeing with you. Despite the subject matter, this is objectively horribly written. It lacks a cohesive narrative.
AIhasUse@lemmy.world 3 months ago
decivex@yiffit.net 3 months ago
It’s not a paper, it’s a stream-of-consciousness style blog post.
megaman@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
I read the fun blogpost that is not an academic paper and ive downvoted you. Does that mean i dont actually exist or that u dont actually exist???
megaman@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
Everyone who downvoted me didnt read the article, or didnt read what i said, or didnt read op, or something, i dont remember what they didnt read but they cannot be real because the only way to disagree with me is to not have read something or other (or did read it, cant remember which)
AIhasUse@lemmy.world 3 months ago
What a good full set of possibilities since it’s certainly impossible for anyone on the internet to lie. How fun for a blog to contradict its main point.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I hate anti-ai mania as much as the next person but the post is funny and it does have a point.
madsen@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I read every single word of it, twice, and I was laughing all the way through. I’m sorry you don’t like it, but it seems strange that you immediately assume that I haven’t read it just because I don’t agree with you.
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I don’t think it’s supposed to have a cohesive narrative structure (at least in context of a structured, more formal critique). I read the whole thing and it’s more like longer shitpost with a lot of snark.