I don’t think they can afford to

These people literally have fuck you money, they can afford a fuck-up like the AI bubble popping tens of times over if not endlessly with their countless legal loopholes. Their attitudes are based purely on having never faced repercussions for their societal parasitism and an insatiable desire for “more”.

Meta in court (for the 900th time): Your honour, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger

They’re saying that a lot of Copilot functionality comes bundled in with Microsoft 365 plans, which a big portion of organizations pay for. That’s opposed to paying for Microsoft subscriptions dedicated specifically to Copilot, that being what your source is describing.

To be fair Poe’s law is a pretty common problem in internet communication. Obviously ambiguity of intent is pretty easily avoided with good writing but it’s also convenient for a lot of people to be able to dodge that with a few relatively standardized characters. Although I can agree in the sense that it often feels like a lazy fix for otherwise bad jokes or dialogue, too often I see something in the vein of “WE NEED TO BLOW UP ORPHANAGES!!! /j” and because there’s a tone indicator in there it somehow manages to write off the lack of actual quality.

idk ask the internet, I’m just trying to be helpful

/gen means genuine, it’s a tone indicator. Another one you might see is /s for sarcastic or /j for joking

Didn’t that technically happen with that whole radio experiment they did with different LLMs? If so then this has a non-zero chance of actually occurring lol

Therein lies the irrationality of it. I imagine they think pumping endless amounts of money into AI research will eventually make it self-sustainable and create means of suppression for them to use on the working class, but it’s based on delusional hope more than anything if not entirely. It’s likely they’ll end up finding that out the hard way.

lemmy.ml user

Doesn’t argue against the point of the replied comment, just twists words to satisfy their narrative

I swear users from this instance are called to the mildest amount of criticism against Russia like the Bat-Signal. Or I guess Vlad-Signal in this case

It’s come to my attention that you’re someone who genuinely believes Russia is not an imperialist nation (where you ironically also attempt to hand-wave the definition of imperialism as forceful authority over another nation and imply that the only right one is that it’s a direct and unique result of capitalism—as if a word can’t have more than one definition), so I doubt you’re someone I can have a rational discussion about authoritarianism with regardless.

And again, you’re fixing the term based on your own perception to make it support your point, which doesn’t really have any merit when it comes to using these words as they are by academics essentially ubiquitously. Until we can both accept that authoritarianism has a set definition independent of many ideologies and therefore cannot be universally applied to them, this will remain a purely rhetorical argument.

Poe’s law binds us all

When is being mislead not a bad thing? In a perfect world, there would be none of that. Of course we don’t live in a utopia, but I’d prefer if we avoid spreading skewed understandings of anything at all as much as possible. It’s a matter of principle.

This is assuming that the average person has a solid grasp of the inner workings of an LLM, which unfortunately isn’t the case. Regardless, it would only be a semantic argument if they were shifting the meanings of the relevant words to support their argument, which they evidently weren’t doing here.

LLMs don’t think, they predict patterns in language mathematically, making them functionally incapable of human capacities like compassion and intelligence, both of which require a conscious mind to be displayed. To use words that go against that without being precise is to imply the opposite. It’s simply a matter of describing it accurately.

If anything, considering it ‘AI’ is a semantic argument because it implies there’s some form of higher thinking occurring under the surface, which there clearly isn’t. It would be like if I said my PC was intelligent because it has a CPU. Obviously we’ve passed the point of using a better term, but it’s still unfortunate we’ve decided on that because it’s inherently misleading.

It’d be very cumbersome and add no value to any conversation.

I think you’re using cumbersome in an unnecessarily negative way since it’s very much an inevitable feature of the concept at hand. Yes, it’s cumbersome, like all controversial fields of study. Things like that work themselves out over time. Until then we’ll just have to deal with it without misleading anyone.

How is it a semantic argument? They’re talking about how LLMs work on a functional level, not arguing the meaning of compassion itself. It’s not hard to say that they emulate compassion and intelligence relatively well, applying human adjectives without any nuance just opens it up to being misinterpreted by people who don’t know any better.

This is a semantic argument so it’s pretty much a nothingburger. I’m just gonna go ahead and apply Alder’s razor and call it here

Notice I wrote ‘as you’ve described it’. I shouldn’t have to explain that the criticism the term tankie is calling attention to in theory is authoritarianism, not communism or socialism as a whole (as the term was literally created by communists). Unless you’re arguing that authoritarianism is a good thing. I guess I wouldn’t be all that surprised.

Agreed! Sorry for giving you that “nuance” you craved, in any case.

I can already tell this isn’t a good faith response based on the first paragraph lol, you clearly didn’t read the article nor do you know the history of the term Tankie. Again, Wikipedia:

The term “tankie” was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU).

As you can see (if you care to be sincere here) it’s a pejorative term created by leftists to describe other leftists. Neither are acts of oppression defined by any of the groups you listed in this context. Be serious, please.

It’s ignorant and combative because it hand waves away all successful socialist states (China, Cuba, etc) without any nuance.

Inherently biased counter-point. You can’t just pose a government as having a successful ideology, at that point we might as well say there exists such a thing as utopia. It’s entirely rhetorical and has nothing solid to stand on.

Socialism and Communism are one in the in the same according to Marx. As we use the terms today, from actual Socialists, is that Socialism is a beginning, transitory state before full Communism.

Sure, but hopefully we can agree that contemporary socialists as a whole certainly do not agree on that definition. The ideology is far too diversified at this point for that to be the case. You can’t say “they aren’t socialists then” because again, that’s entirely rhetorical. In that case Protestants aren’t Christians, and Shia Muslims aren’t Islamic. Sure that’s religion, and you can say that’s different, but at the end of the day both religion and politics encompass ideological systems. They cover different niches, but what they fundamentally are stays the same.

This is the general agreed upon consensus at a high level.

This part really gets me. What are we defining as high level? Lemmy.ml mods? Even experts on the matter wouldn’t unanimously agree, they’re not a hivemind.

the term “tankie” insults Socialists and Communists alike, as we’re all working towards the same goal.

See my third point. Generalizations out the wazoo in this statement.

Where was I supposed to find a succinct rebuttal to this other than the people against whom the term is used? Wikipedia? Fox News?

Oh, I dunno… Academic sources would be a good place to start. I wouldn’t say a lemmy community is very close to that.

False equivalence and you know it.

Fair, though I edited it right after from Jew to National Socialism as I realized the error right away. You can’t say that’s a false equivalence, so ha!