I just consulted 54 trillion "people" who agree that this is idiotic.

[ghostrunner@hachyderm.io]

@Natasha_Jay this DESPITE the foundational study's Conclusion that it is inaccurate.

https://openaccess-api.cms-conferences.org/articles/download/978-1-964867-73-1_45

[nilz@norden.social]

@Natasha_Jay

Is this SIMULACRON-3 ??

[knutson_brain@sfba.social]

@doctormo hmm…

[natasha_jay@tech.lgbt]

@ghostrunner
Why am I not surprised?

[slotos@toot.community]

@Natasha_Jay Are we automating Goodheart’s law now?

[slotos@toot.community]

@Robo105 @Natasha_Jay Correction, “what people that trained AI models think others should believe”.

[dukeboitans@mas.to]

@Natasha_Jay Fuck this shit. AI is garbage tech and completely useless. There's nothing to salvage here.
I say we nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[priscillaharing@mastodon.green]

@Natasha_Jay run a simulation based on the other & former opinions of unspecified entities to determine the current and specific opinion of a certain group of people - yeah no

[peteriskrisjanis@toot.lv]

@Natasha_Jay this defies any purpose actual polling serves. Polling is quite literally with goal to get what people think at recent point in the past.
Polling already alone is incredibly hard, and internet and lack of land line phones has made even close to impossible. Anyone who has allowed such "llm generated polling" nonsenss to be published as truth should be called out to be liar.
Commercial polling has been struggling, but this takes the cake.

[overtondoors@infosec.exchange]

@Natasha_Jay Jesus fucking Christ. So... in other words, complete unadulterated bullshit posing as a survey?!?

[peteriskrisjanis@toot.lv]

@Natasha_Jay I understand llm appeal in content templating etc. but claiming that this somehow gives you any believable reference is madness.

[dtraslerwriting@mastodon.social]

@Natasha_Jay OK, this is why the other day I suggested that no one needs to quote "Elon Musk says" or any of that stuff anymore. Stop interviewing these idiots, and ask their idiot-boxes to make up what they MIGHT have said. That might get them to understand that having "AI" stand in for real people is a bad idea. And if it doesn't, at least we're still only getting bullshit answers like we would if we asked the "real" people.

[guerillaontologist@social.coop]

@Natasha_Jay

[pizzademon@mastodon.online]

@Natasha_Jay the myriad ways people convince themselves that they are correct and not lying.

[zer0unplanned@friendica.rogueproject.org]

@lemonlolita @Natasha_Jay unless you make the LLM yourself.. I'm tired of telling this to people.

[jmcrookston@mastodon.social]

@Natasha_Jay

I just asked AI to simulate me not being able to stand this stuff 8 million times to verify and it resulted in 11 and 1/2 million verifications that I can't stand this stuff. So my point is completely validated.

[jawarajabbi@mastodon.online]

@ohir @Natasha_Jay

Well this apparently needs explaining: I was making a little joke. But you are correct that the shit I make up will be obvious. You get what you pay for, right?

[lemonlolita@calckey.world]

@zer0unplanned@friendica.rogueproject.org @Natasha_Jay@tech.lgbt
Even if you make your own LLM it's still useless as a replacement for polling.

[thenovemberman@bookstodon.com]

@Natasha_Jay further #enshittification

[hazz223@mstdn.social]

@Natasha_Jay what the actual F***!? This is the 2008 financial crisis all over again!! (Weird defence, but I feel is oddly equivocal here).

Building assumptions on assumptions on assumptions until someone actually looks, and then entire scheme collapses wiping out peoples lives. How do we keep doing this!?!?
Ugh A.I.