I bought a datacenter GPU that doesn't fit in a normal motherboard, macgyvered the fan with jumper wires, and now I'm running a model that ties with Claude Sonnet 4.6 on benchmarks, all for £200.
I thought parts felt like AI and parts felt like a British human writing it.
AI(?):
But here is the thing: this is a Volta GPU with 16GB of HBM2 memory, 5120 CUDA cores, and I picked it up for about £150 on eBay. The compute is still real. The VRAM is still real. And the memory bandwidth is where it gets genuinely surprising.
Human (?):
So I shoved some jumper wires into the connector and jammed the other ends into a spare fan header (turn your volume up)
I suspect he’s used some AI polishing tool to turn his draft into a publishable post.
It’s so clearly written with the aid of an LLM that I’m embarrassed for all the people downvoting this comment. Just because the basic outline of the information presented and the sequence of events comes from the real experience of a real person, it does not mean that the real person wrote the article themselves. Seriously, how many real people write like a bad 80s detective movie script? It’s literally a parody trope at this point.
I am a monkey, I live on a rock, in the middle of an infinite empty space, that none of the smartest monkeys on this rock can figure out.
I am part of a species that has spent its entire history killing itself in the most horrifying and ghastly ways for the most benign reasons that the greatest war approaches us and everybody is so accepting.
The planet I live on is slowly becoming inhabitable to point where the thought of kids is pointless. And banks have used to many money glitches that currency across the globe is going into hyperinflation.
I really really cannot illustrate how much I do not give a fuck about the cadence of written words in that small space of relief I get from the inevitable destruction looming in a completely absurd and pointless existence.
It has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Are you blind? It’s the exact same bland, AI regurgitated writing style as every other AI written article.
“It’s not blah. It’s blah.”, “it’s genuinely <insert adjective of amazement>”. I can go on. As soon as you see it once you see it everywhere. When every article reads the exact same way it’s horrendous, it’s tiring, it’s the end of the internet. It’s all bots now.
I don’t really care what Linus Torvalds has to say, unless it’s about the Linux kernel, and I don’t think his opinions matter outside of that. Being a great programmer doesn’t mean he’s also an intelligent, socially aware person.
He did an interview with Linus Tech Tips a few months ago, and when asked about artists being “upset about the large scale theft of work” coming from AI, he said “that’s reality, deal with it” and even went on to talk about photographers that are out of work because “you can fake pictures so much better now” while, within the same breath, saying programmers wouldn’t lose their jobs because he wants to have his cake and eat it too. (Obviously I’m paraphrasing a bit)
I do agree AI can be a useful tool, and it’s a position I’ve held since OpenAI was first starting to become recognizable. But anything that’s generated by AI is slop, and I’ll continue to call it such even if nobody else will.
The movie “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” used AI tools to place random blemishes and marks (that the artists created) on characters faces across multiple frames. I don’t really feel like finding a source for this one, but I’m sure you could fairly easily if you’re that curious. I think that’s an actual use for AI. Streamlining and speeding up the creation process to give creative people more time to do actual creative work. I don’t think asking an LLM to generate or “create” something for you is anything but slop.
Slop isn’t about quality, it’s about the morality. The, again, large scale theft of work required to get to the point of being able to generate something of a passible quality level, plus the destruction of the environment in the process. I think it’s pointless to reject AI tools entirely due to how prominent and widespread they are, but “creating” something with AI will always be slop.
Source for the LTT interview: https://youtu.be/mfv0V1SxbNA
What morality do you derive from creating competing works and throwing them out for free across from where someone is trying to make a living from similar product? -It’s what GPL is all about, and Linus and RMS both live high off the hog instead of living to their commie ideals -the same way communist leaders do.
Sure, some developers find ways to monetize their work, but many don’t and shouldn’t have to. The ones that do are also catering to the competition while pretending to be competition (like Firefox). -As such, they end up playing politics instead of being run like a business.
You’re likely conflating the tools with the implementation or the implementers. An open source model on local hardware has next to zero ethical concerns.
There are MANY ethical concerns about the actions of the big players in AI, their data centers, and to some extent, the original, bootstrapped training data sourcing.
Many, many, many things “consume a lot of power” which is both common and benign. A whirlpool tub “consumes a lot of power” for example. So does an electric stove. And the power can be from any source, such as solar, hydro, or wind.
That’s why I specified there’s minor issues that could be argued about the original data sources. However, that bird has flown the coop. There’s no putting that genie back in the bottle, and no way to undo it. You could argue the company’s responsible owe every single person on the planet some form of restitution, which I do, but I don’t think that qualifies as an ethical concern since it’s universal. No one person was harmed more than another, it was all publicly available data - so the public should benefit from the result. Refusing to use it only hampers yourself, at no detriment to those perceived as wrongdoers.
Right? Yet using AI takes less electricity than that. The concerns are being wildly exaggerated, overblown, and I suspect it’s being done intentionally as a psychological attack on societies to hinder competing nations from faster adoption.
Note a key point of contention is how the training data is used and whether it is effectively discarding copyright. If you invested time making an open source project to do something people appreciate and you get attribution as a result, you may be unhappy that a model trained on your stuff can let a user prompt up an embedded implementation of what your project does without any attribution.
This pretty much applies to all models. No one limited training data to explicitly public domain stuff.
You might not appreciate it, but if it’s posted online then it’s no different from someone else learning to code from reading the project. It’s not making copies of the code, it’s just strengthening the weights on a neural network. Sure, if the code is so obscure that nothing else is like it then it’s possible to get the model to regurgitate some of it due to having so few relevant sources, but it’s very unlikely to be comprehensive enough that it’s violating any copyright. If a court finds that to be the case, for some fictitious example, then I’m certain they can find an agreeable resolution to the isolated case.
However, none of that is justification for just writing off the technology entirely. Pandora’s Box has been opened. The genie isn’t going back in the bottle. You can’t close the barn door, all the cows already escaped. What do you think boycotting it will accomplish? What exactly is the goal by figuratively sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the models don’t exist?
I have seen this argument before and it doesn’t make sense even in theory.
I used to work at a company that did open source work and also proprietary work with third party closed source code. The company didn’t let anyone who had seen proprietary code contribute to open source, because they felt once a person ‘learned’ from a proprietary codebase, then it’s too risky if similar looking code lands in a project.
Imagine if someone saw the source code for Excel. Then sometime later they notice that Calc didn’t have a feature that Excel did, and contributed an implementation of the feature. Even if they hadn’t been looking directly at the Excel source code in the moment of implementation, you think Microsoft would be so “understanding” when they see someone that once worked on Excel contributing what could be construed as infringing?
The AI companies also seem to acknowledge this, as they have offerings that promise not to use your proprietary code as training fodder. If it is not a risk of infringement, then why would it matter to promise that the proprietary code is kept out of training data? Though it was short lived, why would OpenAI have even made a deal to license Disney material if it’s all fair use anyway? If this sort of stuff is fair game, why do they get so pissy when other companies distill models?
Even as the AI company’s have roughly defended this scenario, their defense should be a cause for concern for users. Generally they say that anything they do with things they can read is ‘fair use’, and when exhibits of clearly infringing outputs are given, they respond with the model only did that because the user’s prompt directed it, and thus the responsibility for infringement should be with the AI user, not the engine that produced the infringing output. So the possibility of an unwitting infringement is possible as the AI companies explicitly say it’s the fault of the user even if it happens.
But we come to your last point, that essentially at this point, the whole thing is ‘too big to fail’ and thus the practical risk is low. Which is true. It’s just a bit disheartening that these companies are given free reign to interpret intellectual property law whichever way is convenient in the moment.
Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful, sincere response. I can tell you’ve given this some thought, and appreciate the fact you aren’t just regurgitating talking points.
You make valid points regarding copyright law concerns, but my own perspective is that it’s an even playing field now. No one individual, group, company, etc was targeted, or unduly affected relative to any other. It could be argued it was ethically wrong to have been done at all, but since it was, and it was done to EVERYONE, then in my view it is a shared creation. Everyone is equally entitled to the resulting, from the social media users whose conversations trained the models, up through the senior engineers or CEOs of non-profit organizations whose code trained the models on syntax.
None of it can be extracted reliably, none of it can be distilled - it is an amalgamation of information. Belonging you everyone. Saying you object to having unwillingly participated is understandable but meaningless since it cannot be undone, cannot be excised, and even if it could, the sheer amount on data means the elimination of any one source would hang an insignificant impact as to be noticable. So it’s moot. You may as well say you object to the Moon being named Luna in the past. Go for it, but it doesn’t change anything. Even if you convinced everyone it should have been called ‘Billy’ instead, you won’t change the reality of the past. Know what I mean?
I don’t mean to be disheartening by highlighting the futility of objection, but it’s undeniable. There’s zero benefit possible, zero gain, and zero impact. Why wallow in complaints of the indelible? Instead, accept and adapt, as humans excel at.
I’d personally like to see global tax laws that establish taxing of usage by businesses with that revenue used to fund Universal Basic Income for every person, so that the productivity and advances of this shared creation are fairly shared with everyone. I think that should be the goal of all objectors, because that is feasible, realistic and fair. Anything else is literally unrealistic. Like demanding of reality that gravity should give you special treatment. Such demands, while grand, are nonsensical.
Okay. So, imagine I’m an indie game developer. I’ve got no artistic talent, no funds, and am just making a game that I want to play, not one I think will make any money.
With me so far? I download a free, open source, open weights model on my laptop. I install the open source tools to allow the LLM to read my project files, and I give it a thorough description of the game I’m designing. I work on some aspect in the foreground, while in the background my GPU is utilized to achieve some task I’ve assigned the AI. When it’s done, I review the work, commit the changes, and assign it a new task.
What are the ethical aspects you can’t ignore in my use case?
If you don’t intend to sell or distribute that game, the only aspects left that I can think of are:
you’re not helping yourself by using AI, you’re just making yourself dumber, so if your goal is simply to make a game, fine, but if you want to maintain your coding skills, it’s a bad idea.
the extra energy consumption, which happens regardless if you’re using your GPU or someone else’s GPU. Might even be worse if everyone uses their own GPU, because there’s a whole ass PC system built around that GPU that also consumes power. But I dunno if that’s the case, actually. I guess this is moot if you’re off the power grid with your own power source, such as full solar or something.
how has the open source model been trained? On what data?
Even if I did intend to sell the game, what change is there? Everything created was something that did not exist prior my prompt to create it.
I’m making myself dumber in the same sense that learning to read & write weakens my memory skills, using a calculator weakens my math skills, or driving a car weakens my physical stamina. Everything is a trade off, and like in everything else, balance is the key consideration.
Correct, I personally have a solar array with a battery system. I typically have an overage, and feed my power back into the network. Even if I didn’t, though, using my GPU for AI uses less electricity than playing a game with it, and even that is dwarfed by microwaving food, using a hair dryer, clothes dryer, etc. Power consumption is a common concern that is shared with everything, so there’s no justification to make it an ethical one just for AI.
In my case, I’m using Qwen, and Kimi, which are both models trained by other models - essentially compressing the original training so a good analogy, if these were people, is my models were trained by professors who themselves trained themselves by reviewing the entirety of the Internet. It’s important, though, to highlight the fact that as neural networks this training is not retention of data - it’s simply adjusting the weights of simulated synapses based on the tagging of input.
So many people seem to think that training means the model has like a compressed database of source material, but that is not the case - even on the original models that trained using pirated data, at no point is the training data incorporated into the model. It informs the model, in the same way you are informed about art by watching a Disney movie. Sure, you might be able to recreate something you saw from memory if you focused on doing that, but it’s not like you can make a perfect copy from your memory. The LLM are NOT idetic.
I think broadly most people are less bothered by what the GenAI can do, but more bothered by what experiences are inflicted upon them by other people using the tech.
All well and good if it can so code reviews and code gen at your behest and you can evaluate and get as much as you think you can out of it, but other people are enabled to be amazingly more obnoxious about it.
“Slop” is mostly because people were inclined to do the slop level quality, but were self limited by the reality their poor ideas were roughly as hard to do as much better ideas. Now AI accelerates people that are not concerned with quality or specifics way more than it can accelerate people that care about specifics and quality.
I’m conflicted about it too. But there is a useful software development tool in there. Its a beige mind good at regurgitating cookie-cutter work. Its pretty good at scaffold and cookie cutter unit tests.
I hate how it makes my colleages behave, but I can totally see the legitimate $500M/yr industry worth of software in there, under all the BS.
There’s a Jetbrains or Atlassian size companies worth of product here.
Totally get what you mean and I can fully respect that stance. In recent times, it was more like a “let’s bash all the people who think slightly positive about AI”, so kind of the same indoctrination, just the other way around.
Ah, you got me. I copied the double negative of the original comment. You’re right, the replies here show there are indeed very many people annoyed by the ‘slop’ comments.
Oh wait, I know this one:
“I know you are, but what am I?”
Name-calling. The last bastion of the stubbornly illogical. I can picture you as a toddler, stamping your feet in a huff as you try to think up more names to call people who disagree with you.
I don’t know whether you read the article. It was quite interesting to me and gave me some good ideas. I not going to replicate what he did, but he has shown me a methodology I could apply to do other things.
It has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Are you blind? It’s the exact same bland, AI regurgitated writing style as every other AI written article.
For well-known authors with a large corpus of prior writing, it’s simple to run a style match analysis, if you wish to demonstrate that they lazily used generative AI to write a particular piece.
But for all the knee-jerk “ai slop” accusations I see on almost every post now, the only justification most offer is that it’s obvious, which sounds like “I can tell by the pixels.”
I detailed several of the indications in another comment. If you’re too blind to see the very obvious indicators then oh boy. That’s what makes it AI slop. They don’t even bother trying to hide it. It’s like bad CGI, there’s no need to say “I can tell by the pixels” because it’s transparently obvious.
It’s literally AI slop. Ignoring the subject of the article (which is whatever), the article is clearly entirely written by AI. The AI writing style is horrendous. “It’s not blah. It’s blah.”, “it’s genuinely <insert adjective of amazement>”
Is nobody extremely tired of the AI slop articles??
I thought parts felt like AI and parts felt like a British human writing it.
AI(?):
Human (?):
I suspect he’s used some AI polishing tool to turn his draft into a publishable post.
It’s so clearly written with the aid of an LLM that I’m embarrassed for all the people downvoting this comment. Just because the basic outline of the information presented and the sequence of events comes from the real experience of a real person, it does not mean that the real person wrote the article themselves. Seriously, how many real people write like a bad 80s detective movie script? It’s literally a parody trope at this point.
Honestly, I just don’t care.
I am a monkey, I live on a rock, in the middle of an infinite empty space, that none of the smartest monkeys on this rock can figure out.
I am part of a species that has spent its entire history killing itself in the most horrifying and ghastly ways for the most benign reasons that the greatest war approaches us and everybody is so accepting.
The planet I live on is slowly becoming inhabitable to point where the thought of kids is pointless. And banks have used to many money glitches that currency across the globe is going into hyperinflation.
I really really cannot illustrate how much I do not give a fuck about the cadence of written words in that small space of relief I get from the inevitable destruction looming in a completely absurd and pointless existence.
word
Is nobody exasperatedly tired of comments calling anything remotely related to AI ‘slop??’
It has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Are you blind? It’s the exact same bland, AI regurgitated writing style as every other AI written article.
Truly, it does not read like it was written using an LLM to me. Maybe you’re expecting it to, so that’s what you see?
“It’s not blah. It’s blah.”, “it’s genuinely <insert adjective of amazement>”. I can go on. As soon as you see it once you see it everywhere. When every article reads the exact same way it’s horrendous, it’s tiring, it’s the end of the internet. It’s all bots now.
Yes.
Lemmy is just by default super AI-hating. I wonder what they felt when Linus Torvalds said that LLM are actually useful tools.
I don’t really care what Linus Torvalds has to say, unless it’s about the Linux kernel, and I don’t think his opinions matter outside of that. Being a great programmer doesn’t mean he’s also an intelligent, socially aware person.
He did an interview with Linus Tech Tips a few months ago, and when asked about artists being “upset about the large scale theft of work” coming from AI, he said “that’s reality, deal with it” and even went on to talk about photographers that are out of work because “you can fake pictures so much better now” while, within the same breath, saying programmers wouldn’t lose their jobs because he wants to have his cake and eat it too. (Obviously I’m paraphrasing a bit)
I do agree AI can be a useful tool, and it’s a position I’ve held since OpenAI was first starting to become recognizable. But anything that’s generated by AI is slop, and I’ll continue to call it such even if nobody else will.
The movie “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” used AI tools to place random blemishes and marks (that the artists created) on characters faces across multiple frames. I don’t really feel like finding a source for this one, but I’m sure you could fairly easily if you’re that curious. I think that’s an actual use for AI. Streamlining and speeding up the creation process to give creative people more time to do actual creative work. I don’t think asking an LLM to generate or “create” something for you is anything but slop.
Slop isn’t about quality, it’s about the morality. The, again, large scale theft of work required to get to the point of being able to generate something of a passible quality level, plus the destruction of the environment in the process. I think it’s pointless to reject AI tools entirely due to how prominent and widespread they are, but “creating” something with AI will always be slop.
Source for the LTT interview: https://youtu.be/mfv0V1SxbNA
About 33:10
What morality do you derive from creating competing works and throwing them out for free across from where someone is trying to make a living from similar product? -It’s what GPL is all about, and Linus and RMS both live high off the hog instead of living to their commie ideals -the same way communist leaders do.
Sure, some developers find ways to monetize their work, but many don’t and shouldn’t have to. The ones that do are also catering to the competition while pretending to be competition (like Firefox). -As such, they end up playing politics instead of being run like a business.
We felt like he’s right about it being useful tools but the ethical aspects are hard to ignore. Yes, many ethical aspects.
You’re likely conflating the tools with the implementation or the implementers. An open source model on local hardware has next to zero ethical concerns.
There are MANY ethical concerns about the actions of the big players in AI, their data centers, and to some extent, the original, bootstrapped training data sourcing.
Well, yes and no. Even open source models had to consume a lot of power for the training, including the use of non-owned data
Many, many, many things “consume a lot of power” which is both common and benign. A whirlpool tub “consumes a lot of power” for example. So does an electric stove. And the power can be from any source, such as solar, hydro, or wind.
That’s why I specified there’s minor issues that could be argued about the original data sources. However, that bird has flown the coop. There’s no putting that genie back in the bottle, and no way to undo it. You could argue the company’s responsible owe every single person on the planet some form of restitution, which I do, but I don’t think that qualifies as an ethical concern since it’s universal. No one person was harmed more than another, it was all publicly available data - so the public should benefit from the result. Refusing to use it only hampers yourself, at no detriment to those perceived as wrongdoers.
I rarely see people agonize over the ethics of playing a game on high settings for hours because of the frivolous use of electricity.
Right? Yet using AI takes less electricity than that. The concerns are being wildly exaggerated, overblown, and I suspect it’s being done intentionally as a psychological attack on societies to hinder competing nations from faster adoption.
Note a key point of contention is how the training data is used and whether it is effectively discarding copyright. If you invested time making an open source project to do something people appreciate and you get attribution as a result, you may be unhappy that a model trained on your stuff can let a user prompt up an embedded implementation of what your project does without any attribution.
This pretty much applies to all models. No one limited training data to explicitly public domain stuff.
You might not appreciate it, but if it’s posted online then it’s no different from someone else learning to code from reading the project. It’s not making copies of the code, it’s just strengthening the weights on a neural network. Sure, if the code is so obscure that nothing else is like it then it’s possible to get the model to regurgitate some of it due to having so few relevant sources, but it’s very unlikely to be comprehensive enough that it’s violating any copyright. If a court finds that to be the case, for some fictitious example, then I’m certain they can find an agreeable resolution to the isolated case.
However, none of that is justification for just writing off the technology entirely. Pandora’s Box has been opened. The genie isn’t going back in the bottle. You can’t close the barn door, all the cows already escaped. What do you think boycotting it will accomplish? What exactly is the goal by figuratively sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the models don’t exist?
I have seen this argument before and it doesn’t make sense even in theory.
I used to work at a company that did open source work and also proprietary work with third party closed source code. The company didn’t let anyone who had seen proprietary code contribute to open source, because they felt once a person ‘learned’ from a proprietary codebase, then it’s too risky if similar looking code lands in a project.
Imagine if someone saw the source code for Excel. Then sometime later they notice that Calc didn’t have a feature that Excel did, and contributed an implementation of the feature. Even if they hadn’t been looking directly at the Excel source code in the moment of implementation, you think Microsoft would be so “understanding” when they see someone that once worked on Excel contributing what could be construed as infringing?
The AI companies also seem to acknowledge this, as they have offerings that promise not to use your proprietary code as training fodder. If it is not a risk of infringement, then why would it matter to promise that the proprietary code is kept out of training data? Though it was short lived, why would OpenAI have even made a deal to license Disney material if it’s all fair use anyway? If this sort of stuff is fair game, why do they get so pissy when other companies distill models?
Even as the AI company’s have roughly defended this scenario, their defense should be a cause for concern for users. Generally they say that anything they do with things they can read is ‘fair use’, and when exhibits of clearly infringing outputs are given, they respond with the model only did that because the user’s prompt directed it, and thus the responsibility for infringement should be with the AI user, not the engine that produced the infringing output. So the possibility of an unwitting infringement is possible as the AI companies explicitly say it’s the fault of the user even if it happens.
But we come to your last point, that essentially at this point, the whole thing is ‘too big to fail’ and thus the practical risk is low. Which is true. It’s just a bit disheartening that these companies are given free reign to interpret intellectual property law whichever way is convenient in the moment.
Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful, sincere response. I can tell you’ve given this some thought, and appreciate the fact you aren’t just regurgitating talking points.
You make valid points regarding copyright law concerns, but my own perspective is that it’s an even playing field now. No one individual, group, company, etc was targeted, or unduly affected relative to any other. It could be argued it was ethically wrong to have been done at all, but since it was, and it was done to EVERYONE, then in my view it is a shared creation. Everyone is equally entitled to the resulting, from the social media users whose conversations trained the models, up through the senior engineers or CEOs of non-profit organizations whose code trained the models on syntax.
None of it can be extracted reliably, none of it can be distilled - it is an amalgamation of information. Belonging you everyone. Saying you object to having unwillingly participated is understandable but meaningless since it cannot be undone, cannot be excised, and even if it could, the sheer amount on data means the elimination of any one source would hang an insignificant impact as to be noticable. So it’s moot. You may as well say you object to the Moon being named Luna in the past. Go for it, but it doesn’t change anything. Even if you convinced everyone it should have been called ‘Billy’ instead, you won’t change the reality of the past. Know what I mean?
I don’t mean to be disheartening by highlighting the futility of objection, but it’s undeniable. There’s zero benefit possible, zero gain, and zero impact. Why wallow in complaints of the indelible? Instead, accept and adapt, as humans excel at.
I’d personally like to see global tax laws that establish taxing of usage by businesses with that revenue used to fund Universal Basic Income for every person, so that the productivity and advances of this shared creation are fairly shared with everyone. I think that should be the goal of all objectors, because that is feasible, realistic and fair. Anything else is literally unrealistic. Like demanding of reality that gravity should give you special treatment. Such demands, while grand, are nonsensical.
I don’t think so, no?
Okay. So, imagine I’m an indie game developer. I’ve got no artistic talent, no funds, and am just making a game that I want to play, not one I think will make any money.
With me so far? I download a free, open source, open weights model on my laptop. I install the open source tools to allow the LLM to read my project files, and I give it a thorough description of the game I’m designing. I work on some aspect in the foreground, while in the background my GPU is utilized to achieve some task I’ve assigned the AI. When it’s done, I review the work, commit the changes, and assign it a new task.
What are the ethical aspects you can’t ignore in my use case?
If you don’t intend to sell or distribute that game, the only aspects left that I can think of are:
Even if I did intend to sell the game, what change is there? Everything created was something that did not exist prior my prompt to create it.
I’m making myself dumber in the same sense that learning to read & write weakens my memory skills, using a calculator weakens my math skills, or driving a car weakens my physical stamina. Everything is a trade off, and like in everything else, balance is the key consideration.
Correct, I personally have a solar array with a battery system. I typically have an overage, and feed my power back into the network. Even if I didn’t, though, using my GPU for AI uses less electricity than playing a game with it, and even that is dwarfed by microwaving food, using a hair dryer, clothes dryer, etc. Power consumption is a common concern that is shared with everything, so there’s no justification to make it an ethical one just for AI.
In my case, I’m using Qwen, and Kimi, which are both models trained by other models - essentially compressing the original training so a good analogy, if these were people, is my models were trained by professors who themselves trained themselves by reviewing the entirety of the Internet. It’s important, though, to highlight the fact that as neural networks this training is not retention of data - it’s simply adjusting the weights of simulated synapses based on the tagging of input.
So many people seem to think that training means the model has like a compressed database of source material, but that is not the case - even on the original models that trained using pirated data, at no point is the training data incorporated into the model. It informs the model, in the same way you are informed about art by watching a Disney movie. Sure, you might be able to recreate something you saw from memory if you focused on doing that, but it’s not like you can make a perfect copy from your memory. The LLM are NOT idetic.
deleted by creator
I think broadly most people are less bothered by what the GenAI can do, but more bothered by what experiences are inflicted upon them by other people using the tech.
All well and good if it can so code reviews and code gen at your behest and you can evaluate and get as much as you think you can out of it, but other people are enabled to be amazingly more obnoxious about it.
“Slop” is mostly because people were inclined to do the slop level quality, but were self limited by the reality their poor ideas were roughly as hard to do as much better ideas. Now AI accelerates people that are not concerned with quality or specifics way more than it can accelerate people that care about specifics and quality.
I’m conflicted about it too. But there is a useful software development tool in there. Its a beige mind good at regurgitating cookie-cutter work. Its pretty good at scaffold and cookie cutter unit tests.
I hate how it makes my colleages behave, but I can totally see the legitimate $500M/yr industry worth of software in there, under all the BS.
There’s a Jetbrains or Atlassian size companies worth of product here.
Many people are incapable of nuance.
I think it has some use cases, but it’s like religion: Don’t cram it down my throat, keep it to yourself, and I don’t mind it if it’s on my terms.
Totally get what you mean and I can fully respect that stance. In recent times, it was more like a “let’s bash all the people who think slightly positive about AI”, so kind of the same indoctrination, just the other way around.
No.
Ah, you got me. I copied the double negative of the original comment. You’re right, the replies here show there are indeed very many people annoyed by the ‘slop’ comments.
Only bootlickers are
🤣
Oh wait, I know this one: “I know you are, but what am I?”
Name-calling. The last bastion of the stubbornly illogical. I can picture you as a toddler, stamping your feet in a huff as you try to think up more names to call people who disagree with you.
Am I meanie poopoo head, too?
Just a factual observation. I mean, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Yes, I lick my GPU’s boots… How did you even know it had boots!?
The guy is explaining how to hack around GPU fans which were never meant to be run at lower speed through jumper cables and you complain about slop?
This “guy” isn’t explaining anything. The entire article is written by AI. It’s the same bland writing style everywhere now.
I don’t know whether you read the article. It was quite interesting to me and gave me some good ideas. I not going to replicate what he did, but he has shown me a methodology I could apply to do other things.
Who gives a shit? You ever read a legal document? They’ve had the same writing style for 70 years.
Actually if you’re interested in running a local llm it’s quite a good article
This article ISN’T AI slop.
It has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Are you blind? It’s the exact same bland, AI regurgitated writing style as every other AI written article.
For well-known authors with a large corpus of prior writing, it’s simple to run a style match analysis, if you wish to demonstrate that they lazily used generative AI to write a particular piece.
But for all the knee-jerk “ai slop” accusations I see on almost every post now, the only justification most offer is that it’s obvious, which sounds like “I can tell by the pixels.”
I detailed several of the indications in another comment. If you’re too blind to see the very obvious indicators then oh boy. That’s what makes it AI slop. They don’t even bother trying to hide it. It’s like bad CGI, there’s no need to say “I can tell by the pixels” because it’s transparently obvious.
Yes but this isnt one of them.
It’s literally AI slop. Ignoring the subject of the article (which is whatever), the article is clearly entirely written by AI. The AI writing style is horrendous. “It’s not blah. It’s blah.”, “it’s genuinely <insert adjective of amazement>”
Its not AI writing. It reads exactly like someone casually talking. Its consice and to the point. There is no “its not x, its y”
He has been blogging dor dam near 6 years you can go read his older posts the writing is consistent.
So much so…