You gave a stranger with no soul and no skin in the game the keys to everything you own.

[ptr_k@dice.camp]

@beyondmachines1
Maybe my brain is just focused on body horror today, but I think I'm going to have this unintended phrase in the back of my mind every time LLMs come up.

#LLMs #AI

[chantaryu2@pataterie.ca]

@ElHadjiMurad @beyondmachines1 I wasn't giving kudos to Atlassian. Just pointing out that in some companies, there are still people with critical thinking who won't suck up to any random shit because it has AI in the name. This incident also made me aware of Jira automation and I am pretty happy about that.

[benaveling@infosec.exchange]

The advantage is that the machine always tells you that you are brilliant.
@nachtet @beyondmachines1

[bob_zim@infosec.exchange]

@toriver @fightscore @beyondmachines1 LLMs do have an economic use, it’s just the use they’re good for is a societal negative: they’re really, really good for the spam industry and for fraudsters. No coincidence many of the companies pushing them are effectively advertising companies.

[Guest]

@beyondmachines1 "Los directores ejecutivos se están dando cuenta, en silencio, de que el plan de sustitución por IA tiene un problema.

Dos problemas, en realidad.

Uno: los costos de los tokens necesarios para ejecutar los agentes de IA ahora superan lo que pagaban a los empleados que despidieron.

Dos: cuando se agotan los tokens, la IA se detiene. Simplemente se detiene. Sin continuidad. Sin solución alternativa. Solo un ícono girando donde antes estaba tu plantilla.
Despediste a personas para ahorrar dinero y compraste una suscripción que te deja acorralado.

Los empleados a los que despidiste sabían qué hacer cuando las cosas fallaban. La IA simplemente te cobra por la interrupción del servicio.

Y luego está el problema de los permisos del que nadie quiere hablar. Para hacer su trabajo, el agente de IA necesita acceso. Acceso total. Tus sistemas, tus patentes, tus contratos, tus planes futuros. Todo lo que pasaste años construyendo, entregado a un proceso que no tiene lealtad, ni discreción, ni nada que perder.

No contrataste a un sustituto.
Le diste a un extraño sin alma las llaves de todo lo que posees."

[elhadjimurad@beige.party]

@chantaryu2 @beyondmachines1 Oups - sorry - I didn't intend the reply to be critical of you - I reworded it a bit.

[a_lex_ander@mastodon.social]

@beyondmachines1 CEOs want to operate in states where they can terminate an employee without any prior notice. They tell us my country is doomed because here it's at least a 30 days period. CEOs are also signing prepaid two year AI contracts. I'm having a hard time understanding anything anymore.

[november@app.wafrn.net]

@beyondmachines1@infosec.exchange

Why did this loser use an LLM to write this?

[dl2jml@mastodon.radio]

@beyondmachines1 So it will be put in every smartphone on this planet.

[wesdym@mastodon.social]

@foolishowl Yes, that would lead to mutual ruin -- the second result Marx specific. You're just describing a specific version of it.

[vive_levant@masto.bike]

@raymaccarthy @beyondmachines1 s/it would only really be a toy/you would only really be a tool

Edit : I misread the original so here is what I intended originally for the sentence to look like.

#thereifixedyourtoot

[raymaccarthy@mastodon.ie]

@Vive_Levant @beyondmachines1
I've used real, working computer tools professionally for decades and written them.
Also computer toys. I know the difference.

[vive_levant@masto.bike]

@raymaccarthy @beyondmachines1 you can check the two possibilities of the third meaning to get my point : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool

[vive_levant@masto.bike]

@raymaccarthy @beyondmachines1 oups, my bad, I overlooked your sentence and was certain to have read « YOU would only really be a toy. »
In this case my substitution worked, but you were right, with IT, it didn’t. Apologies.

[wesdym@mastodon.social]

@lastdinosaur Mature adults don't use that word that way. You should know better.

[wesdym@mastodon.social]

@fightscore There are things it's proven very good at, mostly things it's already been doing for some years. Protein-folding, for example.

At the risk of discomforting some people, a good way to think about it is that AI tends to be good at things that autistic people are -- monotonous scanning, counting, etc. -- but has essentially perfect memory compared to humans, and far more powerful computational capacity. So it's good at things that require those tasks.

But not most other stuff.

[wesdym@mastodon.social]

@kepeken What gives you that impression? Please don't tell me that you're one of those people who confuses competent literacy with fakery.

[chantaryu2@pataterie.ca]

@ElHadjiMurad @beyondmachines1 no worries

[beyondmachines1@infosec.exchange]

@PTR_K sorry about that.

[beyondmachines1@infosec.exchange]

@capnthommo not sure. Don't stop your enemy when they are making a mistake still stands.