The MAHA report got me thinking. We need a concise slur for people who blindly copy and paste LLM outputs. It needs to say that the person is lazy, ignorant, gullible, disrespectful, and dishonest all at once. Something along the lines of NPC. Maybe parrot? But that’s not too catchy. Any ideas?
We need another one for people who think posting, “I asked chatGPT and this is what it said…” is in anyway contributing to anything.
Evertime I tell them that I also have access to chatgpt and if I wanted to ask it I would, I only asked real ppl for answers from real ppl, if you need to ai or even use google, I’m good, I can do that on my own.
What’s the difference?
I stopped listening to a daily news podcast partly because the hosts did this live on the air. They’d ask ChatGPT for a statistic, then say “ChatGPT says it’s 37% of Americans” or whatever. They never fact-checked it, and based on how consistently wrong LLMs have been in my experience, it called into question everything else they said.
It’s a great way to instantly lose trust in another person’s abilities.
That might be one of the most unhinged used of ChatGPT I’ve seen yet. There’s virtually no linguistic difference between saying one number or another, all possible answers are gonna look identical to the machine. I’d like to see these slopgobblers try to ask the same question several times and see the results
Yeah it’s basically asking “give me a statistic that feeds the current Internet vibe on the topic”
67% of statistics are made up on the spot.
The French have a good inside joke. Just call them cat farts.
I see what you did there. But would you call the perpetrators farts or the slop they produce?
That seems to be a subset of the same thing to me.
There’s a few people at my work who do this. They’ll straight up say it out loud in meetings.
I asked a Llama model on Hugging Face, and this is what it said…
I asked ChatGPT and this is what it said:
An argument for using ChatGPT and sharing its response is that sharing what ChatGPT said can, in fact, contribute meaningfully—just like quoting a book, article, or expert. If the AI’s response adds insight, solves a problem, or sparks discussion, then referencing it is a valid form of contribution. Dismissing it entirely overlooks the evolving role of AI as a tool in public discourse.
I asked grok to summarize this for me, and it said:
any way
“He who is without sin…”