• ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Depends which definition of bullshit you use, I guess.

      Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn’t care whether what they say is true or false.

      Wiki

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        the bullshitter doesn’t care whether what they say is true or false.

        That’s another way to say “intent is irrelevant”.

        It’s also effectively the perfect definition of LLM output. Content for the sole purpose of looking the part with absolutely no consideration for reality.

        • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          …bullshit is speech intended to persuade…

          Quoting out of context is not going to score you any points

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            It is intended (by the designer) to persuade. It’s intended to persuade you that it’s something a human would say.

            Ignoring that you’re trying to claim one dude’s definition of bullshit as the law, that one dude’s definition is an exact flawless match for what LLMs are.

            • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              It is intended (by the designer) to persuade.

              According to you, I presume? Or can you back that up somehow?

              LLMs were developed to simulate human-like understanding and generation of language. They’re called large language models for a reason.

                • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  That’s why they simulate it. Just like I said.

                  Look, there’s no point going any further with this. You just keep making baseless claims without any explanation or even attempt to try and convince me otherwise. When called out, you ignore it and move on. I’m not interested in discussions where people are just talking past each other while disregarding everything said in the previous messages. Take care now.

                  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    They don’t simulate anything.

                    LLMs are objectively bullshit. You’re the one who went way down the train trying to act like the exact correct word wasn’t fair, and I responded to the only part of any of your posts that wasn’t outright word salad nonsense.