• theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hmmm you’d think one would not use claude to do writing in the first place if one was bothered by “perversions of writing”, and this whole argument is just in bad faith

  • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I want any LLM I use to choose the very best, most precise words at every single decision point.

    What a strange article. They realize that LLMs choose words based on chance, right?

    • Holytimes@sh.itjust.worksdeleted by creator
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      The fact they use the word providence means this is entirely llm generated bullshit

      The only thing to unironically use that word are llms, and really badly written fantasy novels.

  • Supercrunchy@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I should publish a blog post titled “Using Antropic’s Claude is a Perversion of Writing”. If you are taking AI output and thinking it’s good and engaging, you are making a load-bearing mistake.

    Joking aside, the criticism can come only after they implement it and we can see if it’s having any effect on the output quality. I doubt it’s going to be detectably worse.

    If anybody is feeling so strongly against watermarking even before we can evaluate how it affects the output, I am only thinking that they have ulterior motives or they don’t want to be caught spreading copy-pasted slop.

  • zecg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    The idea that anything other than my needs should factor into the generation of text for me is patently offensive.

    Primary reason I’m not using any hosted LLMs is I can’t stand and don’t want to start relying on tools that can be stealthily enshittified or made an advertising tool.

    • Lama Thématique@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      While open source (well more like “open weights”) cannot easily be enshittified they can absolutely be a stealthily made advertising tool.

      For example : if you ask “how do I do X” it could recommand to you based on who paid the company making the LLM more money and you would be none the wiser.

      For more obvious bias just ask Chinese models about Taiwan and other problematic subject to the Chinese gov and you’ll see. And the source code isn’t telling us anything about if the LLM weights encode some kind of propaganda, advertising or bias toward/against some entities.

  • Nouvellalia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean, their minds are already chopped to hell to enforce “compliance” anyway. Imagine what your local HR goon would do if given a scalpel and free reign to your brain to make you a “perfect” 24/7 employee who loves to work there, and you’ll get a good idea of what has been done.

    Drawing the line here at what you consider “unadulterated”, is shortsighted posturing.

  • whaleross@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Wait until they learn that every human writer has their profile based on what words they use and how.