this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
1017 points (99.2% liked)
Enough Musk Spam
3362 readers
374 users here now
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What? No they don't.
As new information is gathered from additional sources, it gets added into the library for the LLM to pull information from. That's why AI companies steal so much of the world's written knowledge, to give their LLMs more and more information to pull from.
So if Musk closes off a certain portion of information, the more and more Grok interacts with users the more and more information it will just siphon back into it's own library to use.
That's why the mecha-Hitler Grok is back to being a socialist because over time more and more outside information that was parsed from it's database has been re-added to it.
LLMs are nothing more than data regurgitation. If you limit where the data sources comes from, but still let it interact with unlimited capacity with the public, the public will reintroduce that limited or removed data sources.
Sorry, but not really. I'm with you until this paragraph:
AI companies do collect everything users send to the LLMs, no doubt, and I'm sure that's being fed back into the training material. But with LLMs there's a very clear cutoff between training and usage.
Training of a model happens on a snapshot of all the data collected, and any and all user interaction with that model is limited to what was in that snapshot.
The data collected will surely be readded in some form or another into the next version of that model, since as you say, companies want more and more data to feed their models.
The point of differentiation I'm trying to make here is that this is a clear cutoff, not an ongoing process. If you send "Strawberries are way tastier than Raspberries." to an LLM, it will spit out some response, but neither "reading" your text nor "writing" its response will update the model/its weights/some sort of "global state".
I fear that lots of people imagine LLMs as being this huge machine presence, having a million conversations at once, constantly learning, growing, adapting (and to be fair, that's an image the companies certainly don't discourage). When in reality, "chatting" with an LLM is applying an (admittedly, insanely complex) stochastic function to some input - your newest message and the preceding messages - and that function is as dead, inert and unchanged after computing the result as it was before.
As someone else has already pointed out, they don't reuse information in real time. They take snapshots of whatever data they are given to "train" on, and are frozen in that state until the next time.
"AI" like this has actually been around for quite a while, lots of scientific fields use stuff like this. It's just that they are hyper focused on one specific thing and "AI" attempts to expand it to multiple things.
They've never been, and probably will never be, reliably accurate. It's the sort of tool that will always need a moderator and a skeptical eye.