this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
133 points (95.9% liked)

Fuck AI

5369 readers
1379 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Inspired by a recent talk from Richard Stallman.

From Slashdot:

Speaking about AI, Stallman warned that "nowadays, people often use the term artificial intelligence for things that aren't intelligent at all..." He makes a point of calling large language models "generators" because "They generate text and they don't understand really what that text means." (And they also make mistakes "without batting a virtual eyelash. So you can't trust anything that they generate.") Stallman says "Every time you call them AI, you are endorsing the claim that they are intelligent and they're not. So let's let's refuse to do that."

Sometimes I think that even though we are in a "FuckAI" community, we're still helping the "AI" companies by tacitly agreeing that their LLMs and image generators are in fact "AI" when they're not. It's similar to how the people saying "AI will destroy humanity" give an outsized aura to LLMs that they don't deserve.

Personally I like the term "generators" and will make an effort to use it, but I'm curious to hear everyone else's thoughts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CodenameDarlen@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

It's the popular term, at the end, the meaning doesn't really matter as long as everybody has the same agreement on what we're talking about.

Don't get too attached to cientific meaning of things.

[–] Flaqueman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Just like "atom" means "that you cannot cut", but turns out you can actually split them into protons, neutrons and electrons. We just called them that way and although the meaning of the name doesn't match reality, we stick to the term.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yeah but reasonable people will readily agree that atoms are not "atomic" in the sense of being indivisible.

On the other hand grifters are really out here saying that computers are "intelligent".

It's also worth pointing out that people really did think atoms were indivisible but they updated their model based on new evidence. Meanwhile grifters never had any basis for their claims of "intelligence" and they will never change their grift despite overwhelming evidence.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

But in your example the scientists didn't stick to the term "atoms". New terms were created ("Protons", "Neutrons" etc) to describe the new thing.

They didn't abandon the term "atom", they kept it's definition and created new words for things that didn't meet that definition.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

A proton, neutron, and orbiting electron is still referred to as a hydrogen atom. The term "atom" was never abandoned.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

the meaning doesn’t really matter as long as everybody has the same agreement on what we’re talking about.

But we don't agree. Tech companies are using the same term to describe ChatGPT and Data from Star Trek when they're not the same thing.

One of those things can get fucked, the other is a sentient being who (as we all know) does the fucking. Not to mention data was an AI before OpenAI ever existed!

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's annoying and messy but language evolves and changes.

Hell, there's a whole category of words that are their own opposite called contronyms. So AI can mean both things and I'd argue makes it a contronym (meaning slop or artificial intelligence depending on context).

If you want to fix it then you need to tackle English as a whole and fix English (which hey I'm right there with you, give me Welsh any day instead).

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Intelligence also means the opposite of intelligence? I must not be intelligent enough for this brain wizardry.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"Language evolves and changes" describes evolving and changing language, not keeping it the same. Language evolves into more specific definitions, not less specific.

For example: you might say "LLMs are one form of intelligence", I don't agree with that, but it makes logical sense. But claiming "LLMs are the same thing as intelligence" changes the definition of "intelligence" to a much broader umbrella. If you want to change that definition then you also need to invent a new word that means "non-LLM intelligence".

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Language evolves into more specific definitions, not less specific.

Citation needed.

Memes used to mean specific pieces of cultural information. Now they're basically anything you can share on the internet.

A troll used to be someone who tried to get a rise out of other people for personal entertainment and who was easily ignored. The term is now used for people who actively and aggressively harass others (and, disturbingly, occasionally to express one's own quirkiness).

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Here's the citation if you really need it. I'm not trying to argue, but the process of becoming more complex and specific to a niche is the literal definition of "evolution":

"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 points 15 hours ago

The way I understand these terms, more complex and more specific are different things. A more complex definition encompasses more things, whereas a more specific definition has a smaller scope.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago

the meaning doesn’t really matter as long as everybody has the same agreement on what we’re talking about.

There is absolutely no agreement. It's grifters versus the truthful.