jennyholzer2

At the start of 2025 I stopped buying Spotify and started buying Apple Music because I felt manipulated by the Spotify application's metrics-first design.

I felt that Spotify was trying to teach me to rely on its automated recommendations in place of any personal "musical taste", and also that those recommendations were of increasingly (eventually, shockingly), poor quality.

The implied justification for these poor recommendations is a high "Monthly Listener Count". Don't mind that Spotify can guarantee that any crap will have a high listener count by boosting it's place in their recommendation algorithm.

I think many people may have a similar experience on once-thriving social media platforms like facebook/instragram/X.

What I mean to say is that I think people associate the experience of being continually exposed to dubiously sourced and dubiously relevant metrics with the feeling of being manipulated by illusions of scale.

reads more like propaganda.

Does your clairvoyance go any further than 2027?

why are you so sensitive?

ChatGPT and Claude Code are industrial strength fans designed to blow smoke up your ass at rates once thought impossible

this is why I say "AI is for idiots"

0.1x

you're putting words in my mouth. i said the big STUPID neural nets.

This was a good faith observation.

In my experience, AI users are meaningfully stupider and more gullible than the rest of the population.

"i'm happy to smoke crack while the dealer is paying for it"

0.1x

it's not an insult, it's an observation

The idea that LLMs make subtle mistakes that are somehow more subtle, insidious and uncatchable compared to any random 25 pull requests you get from humans is simply ridiculous.

This is plainly true, and you are just angry that you don't have a rebuttal

i feel my coworkers who use AI are slower, stupider, and less trustworthy than my coworkers who don't.

0.1x

0.1x

This guy's knowledge of art history is the Dada wikipedia page and the Banksy movie from 20 years ago.

Allow me to repeat myself: AI is for idiots.

I'd add a link to where I copied it from

LLMs can't do this.

Your code is unambiguously better than any LLM code if you can comment a link to the stackoverflow post you copied it from.

no hate but i would try to fire someone for saying that

From my vantage I would argue LLMs make good devs around 0.65x more productive

LLMs have dramatically empowered sociopath software developers.

If you are sufficiently motivated to appear more "productive" than your coworkers, you can force them to review thousands of lines of incorrect AI slop code while you sit back and mess around with your chatbots.

Your coworkers no longer have enough time to work on their in-progress PRs, so you can dominate the development team in terms of LOC shipped.

Understand that sociopaths are skilled at navigating social and bureaucratic environments. A sociopath who ships the most LOC will get the promotion every single time.

my point is that embedding-shape's reading comprehension and/or language skills are too weak for him to safely use LLM technology.

In my experience Google's AI summaries are consistently accurate when retrieving technical information. In particular, documentation for long-lived, infrequently changing software packages tends to be accurate.

If you ask Google about news, world history, pop culture, current events, places of interest, etc., it will lie to you frequently and confidently. In these cases, the "low quality summary" is very often a completely idiotic and inane fabrication.

no one said you can't turn on the radio and start listening to static

capitalism is essentially evil

even though nearly every post on this website makes this point, the commenters here really do not like it when you state this explicitly.

I seriously doubt that there is even one "AGI evangelist" who has the intellectual capacity to read books written for adult audiences.