Do you think the CEO of Kraft feeds macaroni cheese dinner from a box to his kids?
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2025
291 points (97.7% liked)
No Stupid Questions
45011 readers
1818 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nah, all the SEO nobheads poisoned search well before Google managed it.
The internet has been inventing nonsense based seemingly on your search queries for a long-ass time.
I for sure believe they do. The number of applications that launched with genuinely useful features, only to have them rolled back because of public backlash or shoved behind a paywall, has always pissed me off. Take Bing image search. When it first showed up, you could actually use it for OPSEC and for tracing the origin of suspect memes. If something felt astroturfed or a user seemed like a bot, I could verify it with Bing search. Now I can’t even use it to search a logo because they gutted it. There’s no way I believe that search capability doesn’t still exist behind closed doors, in the hands of political firms, law offices, or government agencies.
No, they just have their human assisstants as a filter to use the entshittified search.
Actors that are externally awful are ubiquitously internally awful. For example, consider every imperialist/colonial empire that has ever existed.
No. They're drinking their own coolaid.
They've offloaded what little thinking they did to LLMs (not that LLMs can think, but in this case it makes no difference), and at this point would no longer be able to function if they had to think for themselves.
Don't think of them as human people with human needs.
They're mere parasites, all higher functions withered away through lack of use, now more than ever.
They could die and be replaced by their chatbots, and we wouldn't notice a difference.
I'm not sure Google has offloaded all of their thinking to LLMs.
Google still employs very very smart people.
They'd just have to be morally bankrupt human refuse to be contributing actively to the profit-driven destruction of the internet and mass public surveillance like they are, so the rest of your points still stand.
And while a lot of that intelligence may be wasted, it's more a function of banal evil and corporate bloat than LLMs.
We're talking execs here, not people.
Of course they've got smart people they're still in the process of getting rid of, but they're not who the OP was asking about, and they're mostly irrelevant anyway (and have been since long before LLMs became a problem), since they're not the ones making decisions.
(Even when talking about smart people, though, being smart about certain things doesn't mean they're immune to LLMs. If those things are good at anything it's catfishing people into believing they're actually intelligent and useful for something, and many a smart developer or scientist involved in their development has fallen for their stochastic bullshit. And once the brain damage has set in it appears to be quite permanent.)
While I agree that execs are not people, I don't think they're being controlled by LLMs.
They're already idiots for the most part though so what does it matter.
The most horrific part, is that we can't tell the difference.
Controlled by LLMs or not, their actions would be indistinguishable.
Controlled by LLMs perhaps not, but I believe that the execs pushing AI are drinking as much AI Kool aid as anyone you know who has AI psychosis. That could be why AI is so sycophantic. That is the social model execs in the big 7 want the world to treat them, and they've drank so much of their own Kool aid that they believe it now.
They're obsessed. When there's manufactured outrage it'll start out as sensible but quickly evolves into the radicals that spew what you see up top. Ai and chat bots have issues but the push to convince the public to hate it was heavy on lemmy. So now there's these radicals that are living in their own toxic fantasy.
I started tinkering with ai right around the time ChatGPT rose to prominence. Locally. On my own machine.
I'm not a doctoral level researcher but I mostly get the tech.
I couldn't agree more. People use ai as a blanket term and don't understand the difference between an LLM and GAN or any of the dozens of other kinds of models.
If it's ai it's bad. Just full stop. Like. The anger of people decrying the death of artistic beauty on subs that prominently feature ms paint stick figure drawings and shitty distorted images makes no sense to me. This isn't costing anyone's job. It's fucking garbage content, with no agenda, and always was.
Having autonomous LLMs posting things is problematic but have ai generated shitposts isn't.
There is fuck all wrong with using ai to make art to hang on your walls, or funny t shirts, or ridiculous banners, or funny pictures to share with friends. The people that decry the death of art have never bought anything in a gallery, they were fine with artists getting paid fuck all before ai. They weren't contributing to artists' living in any meaningful way.
And like. The most vocal critics seem to understand the least about it. Such that they hate it because it's made with ai just assume that someone's made it using OpenAI because that's the only thing their rage-addled minds can process existing.
They say it's theft and we should ban everything (how's that working out for you?) instead of clamouring for fair compensation for anyone whose work is being used to train a model.
They'll yell: all these models are based on theft. And sure. But a) I don't give a flying fuck about a corporation'a right to exploit an artist and profit off their work and never have. And b) will respond to the suggestion that we create new models that fairly compensate people by yelling louder and becoming irate.
They're not rational. There are many valid criticisms of the tech, but you can't even talk to these people about addressing them. Because a lot of the criticisms can and should be addressed. They won't hear it.
I've commissioned paid art for rpg campaigns, and I can't draw a distinction between AI and LLMs because I get yelled at by people saying, "Its just the name of the field! Nobody thinks the Sims games are actually intelligent!"
So am I allowed to draw that line now? And do you see that me using a comfyui on my local machine does actually mean an artist won't get paid? This position isn't 100% strawman.
My main issue is that I think maybe they can't be patched because they're not deterministic systems, and I have personally been asked by an executive whether a team could reasonably be replaced by LLM agents behind their backs as soon as the tech was available. How was I supposed to form your opinion given those experiences and why do you think that I'm rage addled rather than just tired?
I don't really understand what you're getting at here.
Sure, I'll line up our talking points with a keyboard and elaborate.
People use ai as a blanket term and don’t understand the difference between an LLM and GAN or any of the dozens of other kinds of models.
When I say "These models aren't actually intelligent, talk about specific technologies and models without lumping them all together under AI." I am met with scoffing saying that everyone knows AI is just the name of the field so I should stop being pedantic. Now you're painting the opposite picture that a person like me lumps them together because of ignorance, and that's frustrating. Maybe some of those assholes you encountered are exhausted because the artificial cheers for this technology are inescapable and that's coloring their interactions with you. I don't feel like it's a fair point to call people ignorant for having to wade through manipulative marketing language to have a discussion. Hopefully you can sympathize with that a little.
The anger of people decrying the death of artistic beauty on subs that prominently feature ms paint stick figure drawings and shitty distorted images makes no sense to me. This isn’t costing anyone’s job.[....]The people that decry the death of art have never bought anything in a gallery, they were fine with artists getting paid fuck all before ai. They weren’t contributing to artists’ living in any meaningful way.
I've paid artists for art related to tabletop RPG campaigns in the past (some but not all). Now everyone shows up to games with genai character portraits and I believe my artist is going to have to quit or at least scale back because of lack of demand. I would ask that we keep in mind how gig work, commission, and subscription models form the basis of most modern artist's income. Anecdotes aren't data, but data doesn't give you an email thanking you for your support while giving up on its dreams. The taste in my mouth just didn't go away when genai invaded shitposting too. Does that make some sense?
They’re not rational. There are many valid criticisms of the tech, but you can’t even talk to these people about addressing them. Because a lot of the criticisms can and should be addressed. They won’t hear it.
I don't think the tech is being used well by the largest actors wielding it. I don't think genai can be secured or patched in the traditional sense because its not deterministic, so prompt diddling will always be a cat and mouse game. I don't think that hallucinations will ever be meaningfully solved. I'd love to learn that the overall adversarial success rate has lowered from 95% since the study I read last year! It's not that I won't hear solutions, I just have very little confidence in them given how this saga has developed over time.
Please spare a little charity for how rattling this shit is to regular people. I believe you that you've talked to some absolute dipshits, and I hope you get fewer in the future. I also hope that maybe you can reinterpret some of that vitriol in light of how these systems might have resulted in them being laid off or otherwise maligned. Maybe it's not that irrational even if they can't articulate their feelings well. Personally, I'm stifling irritation at an executive who asked me to replace a technical team with an agentic framework (behind their back) despite the technology being wildly inadequate. I hope none of that overflows onto you.
I don't think they are drinking their own cool aid.
Meta's Zuck and tiktok ceo don't let their kids on their respective short form content platforms because they know its harmful effects.
They are smart enough to know not to dip into their stash.
I think they definitely have their own version of it.
Nah, you can actually see some of them developing AI psychosis.
You've got to understand that most AI execs aren't technical people, they're hype men. And LLMs are weirdly good at hype and the illusion of technical correctness. So they don't have a problem with it.
Sam Altman saying he uses chatgpt to tell him how to act with his baby is one of the things he's said I actually believe. Of course he's also a got a team of nannies he couldn't be bothered to mention, but the trust for chatgpt is there.
That's not a thing
There’s something important to understand about LLMs. You need to imagine them as a crowd of 1,000 people, who you use an algorithm on, to get close to the most popular opinion on the answer.
another thing to mention, YOUTUBE. The search bar doesn't even do anything, it shows RECOMMENDATIONS instead of answers to the search.
Paying doesn't even stop that! It's actually maddening
type in before:2027 at the end of your search for a much more palatable experience
shouldn't that be before:2025 ?
no,i've been using before:2026 up until yesterday. the modifier strips the unrelated suggested content.
I see - I was wondering if it might be something like that. Thank you - I'll try to think of that - but since I clear my cookies every now and then and do not ever use an account, it might not be quite as needed for me.
I think he meant 2017 and the ingrained year of 2025 led to him typing it slightly wrong.
ah - that makes some sense.
How do you use the search bar in youtube? I put in topics or keywords, which seem to work just fine.
Are you putting in whole questions? I'm not sure the search function is designed to worked like that
I saw a cool video here once. Typed the EXACT title to YouTube (including caps in the right words) and it didn't show up. Only the big channels around that topic.
Personal rant that is still related, but not needed
Hell, I play trackmania turbo. Its still getting new videos from the community. 3-5 vidoes a week. Look it up, and some of the first results are a non-turbo player uploading 1 video 4 years ago. But since that channel is getting millions of videos, THAT video is promoted, not the fans still playing now.
Unlisted videos don't show up in the search as far as I know.
Even if i put the url for a specific video on my TV YouTube it doesn't find it.
Probably controversial but Youtube is my least favourite search because it doesn't tie in to your Google search at all. Like you search something on Google but YT doesn't know that so the results are completely different. I WANT it to be fed my normal search history for context, what even is the point of having an interconnected ecosystem and being logged in to Google? Otherwise I'd just stick to DDG
Every example of human interest profile targeting functionality that humanity has ever invented, even if it begins as a way of legitimately improving the user’s experience, eventually is gutted and retooled to cyberstalk and pimp them out to voyeuristic clients.
The clients? Mostly rich pay-per-view incel corporations that could never hope to reach their desired audience organically, much less hold their interest, so they are absolutely willing to pay for non-consentual attention control.
Once we reach this phase, your pimp has less and less interest in delivering on promises they made to you a long time ago about relevant content. They know you’ll keep giving them juicy data to help pair you with clients that they can prove have the best chance at manipulating you and getting what they want from you.
So yes, you’ll probably find that the convenience you could once purchase by giving them more of your data will slow. Ultimately, all it will purchase is more intrusive advertisers stalking you everywhere you go.
Your idea of sticking to DDG sounds like a better option
YouTube doesn't have a search bar. It's for requesting recommendations on the feed. Search an obscure singer once in your life? For the next 6 months he will be present in your feed.
If you need to do search you have to use newpipe or similar alternatives
I dont think any of these tech execs (all execs?) use their products. They all have assistants to do everything for them, so they have no idea what this whole "internet" thing is, other than it makes them money.
load more comments
(13 replies)
The LLM? Yes, actually, and it's not secret:
The "preview" version are often pretty good, before Google deep fries them with sycophantic RHLF. For example, Gemini 2.0 and 2.5 Pro both peaked in temporary experimental versions, before getting worse (and benchmark maxxed) in subsequent updates.
But if you really want unenshittified LLMs, look into open weights models like GLM. They're useful tools, and locally runnable. They are kind of a "secret useful AI out there that plebs don’t get to use" because of the software finickiness and hardware requirements to run it locally make it difficult.
On top of that, Google employees probably have access to "teacher" models and such that the public never gets to see.
For search? IDK. I'm less familiar on what Google does internally, but honestly, from what I've read, the higher ups are drinking kool-aid and assert all is fine.
I assume all high-level positions in tech companies are using better versions than what they shove out to the rest.
I mean, Microsoft treats Enterprise users with class with Windows 10 Enterprise. That version doesn't have nearly the amount of bloat that even Professional has. Hell, Enterprise doesn't even have that stupid online search function.
So it's like they KNOW they have greenlit some shitty ideas, but, they won't deal with it so why not just throw it all onto others to make their experiences miserable?
They do have unshittified versions of their LLMs on aistudio.google.com where they are not bound by an ultra long system prompt.
Not the same. In the early days of chatgpt it would cheerfully tell you how to make a bomb.
Gemini is pretty uncensored with certain workarounds, and you can still use all sorts of LLMs over API to do that.
Yes.
Without question.
Nah.
Those assholes probably kept a working version of Inbox for themselves. 😡
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›