> Open source models are already out there and they are good. Good luck with banning their use.

Would most companies really risk using them if they were illegal though? Could you convince higher ups to drop the Claude subscription because you can download an illegal model to run on company servers?

This phenomenon is so widespread and I can't see it as anything other than serious AI psychosis.

I think people want to feel useful and helpful in general, and now a lot of people are getting this feeling by using AI to answer questions. And it's like you said they get so mad when you point out that their AI screenshot is wrong or, even more obviously, that the person who asked could also just read the google gemini blurb. They get mad because you're invalidating their feeling of being helpful.

Last year someone went missing on the water in my area. There was a lot of talk on facebook during the search, and a coordinated facebook group. And every post would have people posting their chats with ChatGPT, or saying they used AI to analyze the weather and currents on the day he went missing to figure out he probably landed on this or that shore (he didn't). These posts are equivalent to the mediums and psychics who also come in with these unhelpful advice posts.

I think fundamentally it's the same as how AI is giving some people an extremely strong feeling of being an expert, and how their psyche seems to lash out to protect that feeling when it's threatened.

Another facebook anecdote, I recently saw someone post in a local genealogy and history group some pure AI slop infographics. When people called him out he said that it's AI but he carefully vets all the information and that they need to stop being luddites or they'll be stuck in the past blah blah devolving into calling them liberals and the like. But his infographics were all incredibly obviously wrong, to anyone who had ever seen a map it's obvious that the coastlines were incredibly wrong, and the city weren't in the correct locations at all. So what can you even do with someone like that? They're just going to retreat into the safety of the chatbot to continue their "research".

Whatever the tool, the problem is that it’s wrong, not that it’s done by AI. Like, why are we conflating the two - is it because it’s now easier for someone to produce a wrong artifact that visually looks ok and therefore tricks our brains? And people get upset because a prior quality heuristic is now obviously broken?

Because this new tool will also tell you, in (mostly) human language, why the wrong artifacts it createds are correct. And it's arguments are very convincing to a lot of people. AI is clearly creating new problems that didn't really exist before, you can't say it's just a tool like any other when this is the only tool where its users form parasocial relationships with it.

It's not only the only tool that tries to manipulate users, it's also one that is certain to lie often and at random. Lies are inherent to the technology. It's a bad tool for the things it's being used for.

That sounds a lot like the American MAGA movement, was my first reaction.

Well, there is a reason why Trump loves it.

Yeah I think so. I mean it's a new social norm - previously if you replied with "hey I read this article here and it says X" it would be really easy to check the source and either say yeah this looks good or disprove it.

Now people will say "I asked AI to give me a map of ocean currents and it definitively says the person is here!" and the argument that "look it's AI, it's probably wrong" just does nothing for a lot of people. Doubly so if the information they want is at the forefront of Google, after all, Google is a big reputable company, so of course what it says is correct.

Yes I agree that the AI itself isn't the problem, but the way it's being pushed and promoted(just ask anything!) is leading to this.

If you say it's obviously AI nonsense you get a reply that "AI is just a tool, it's part of our daily life now, criticize the content and not what tool was used", you see that so much on here. But then if you try to criticize the content the person won't believe you because the AI says it's correct.

Its because AI makes it 100x easier for people to make things that are wrong, and feel like they got it right. It is a dunning-kreuger amplifier.

Details have a huge impact on how fun a game is. So far the vibeslop games I've seen look about as fun as crappy unity assets flips or mobile games. every so often the Instagram algo will show me some post a long the lines of "The game industry is finished!" and there is no way anyone can seriously looks at the games in those posts and say they look fun to play.

And someone trying to vibe copy another person's game is definitely the type who has no idea of value to add. So many of the slop games the whole concepts are so generic that they definitely just asked chatgpt for everything.

In the modding scenes for some games I play I've seen vibe coded mods where the gameplay additions make no sense and have no sense of balance or fun, with these completely new to the community devs having ko-fi links set up from the start.

What I think of is all the HD remasters out there which look disastrously worse than the original, at least in my eyes. Why does this happen? Are the best artists working on new games instead? Are remasters pushed out with less care, shorter schedules, and less budget? Maybe some combination… and maybe there are some parallels with quick, mostly unsupervised LLM copies of a game.

If someone makes a cheap copy of my unreleased game and it's bad, that's also bad for me, I think.

I think the much bigger problem is that these people are usually trying to do some "passive income" play, drop-shipping type crap. And will soon be spamming what would be the usual discovery mechanisms with slop. It's happening on youtube for educational type videos.

Earlier this summer I applied for a job at a local startup that I had all the qualifications for and quite a bit of relevant experience. I got a rejection email within 48 hours. Eventually I happened to meet with one of the founders through a connection and had a chat, he said how amazing it was that someone local had worked on similar problems in the past. In the end he said that unfortunately they don't have the capacity to expand the team right now.

Their job postings are currently still up on their site and linkedin.

Writing documentation is one of the most often mentioned uses of LLMs. I suppose if Anthropic wouldn't be doing it it would put into question why anyone else would.

Maximizing click-through rates leads to garbage clickbait and often misleading thumbnails, it is not a good metric. Those kinds of thumbnail, and channels built on low effort but high engagement content, were widely derided before AI came along.

When the worker loses their jobs over bad executive decisions, they sure feel like they were pretty harshly financially penalized for those decisions.

And they can get a new job? Or should people be in the same job all their life?

Constant building with AI is something that they (Microsoft) promote and are heavily invested in.

And then get penalized for in the market when they say we need to build more DCs and spend huge capex... which is what GH needs right now

Yeah I've seen a lot of applications and some interviews where what they are looking for the most, by far, is your "AI skills". Questions like: How are you currently using AI day to day?; Can you describe your current agentic setup?; things like that are the only questions asked in the application.

And I don't understand why you would wave away needing to know anything about the codebase's underlying tech because "The AI can take care of all that, we don't need to look at code anymore" while also not believing that any competent developer could prompt AI to get a good setup within a week or two max.