Post #2708716

2026-05-20 00:11 UTC

LLMs are random. Its weighted randomness that frequently values racist outputs like whitewashing a crowd or calling black people monkies (to name two recent examples), but it is still random. That’s why you can ask it the same question twice and get two different answers. Ever notice how AI defenders try to pretend the technology is better than it is, and brush past the countless failings and ethical failures inherent to the technology by condemning humanity? A bad toolsmith blames the worker, I guess. At a certain point, if the technology is only doing bad things, or doing things badly, it might just be bad technology.

Replies (1)

@mirshafie@europe.pub 2026-05-20 08:36

If they’re random, they can not be racist. That’s my point. They’re returning output based on the data they’ve been fed (assuming we’re talking about training an LLM on Twitter). I have noticed that North American grifters pretend that AI is much better than it is, thank you very much. I also notice that China is taking a quite different approach, with the result of the population being significantly more hopeful about AI going forward. I think the AI “critique” on Lemmy is, for the most part, North American backlash stemming from bad practices, overpromising, environmental destruction and a general financial grift that threatens jobs. Those are all very relevant and valid, but I think it completely misses the point to blame a technology rather than a political/economic system.

Open ##2708715