this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
1232 points (95.4% liked)

Fuck AI

7775 readers
1694 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 51 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

New York State not New York City.

I don't know why Mamdani is pictured. I think it is because the proposal was introduced in the State Senate by Kisten Gonzalez who is a DSA member.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 39 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

New York State not New York City.

I don’t know why Mamdani is pictured

the text in this image is also just flat-out wrong: the proposed legislation does not actually "ban AI from answering questions" on these subjects at all, as this post claims it does.

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026/kristen-gonzalez/ny-state-senator-kristen-gonzalez-her-bill-address-ai explains that her bill is strictly about impersonating licensed professionals:

We have documented instances of AI chatbots providing false medical license numbers to users and documented cases of real harm from AI chatbots providing misinformation. This is what my common-sense legislation addresses—protecting users from misinformation, scams, and fraud. This legislation does not prohibit a user from asking a chatbot questions or receiving general information and advice, as long as the chatbot is not presenting that information as a licensed professional. It would also not prohibit licensed professionals from consulting AI technology in the course of their work.

[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Fake news? On my social media??

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 150 points 5 days ago (25 children)

Good direction, but very futile considering that guardrails on LLMs are about as real as LLMs are intelligent

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 64 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

It might not work, but it would serve to increase awareness that you absolutely cannot trust these machines to give you correct answers, ever.

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 22 points 5 days ago (2 children)

This is fair. The next step is to litigate the companies for the harms they cause.

There's a whole drove of people now that have gotten harmed, murdered, and committed suicide because of the psychological harm that these models cause.

Were it a car with some kind of manufacturing defect, there'd be recalls and you wouldn't be able to sell ones with the fault. If it was salad contaminated with bacteria, that'd be recalled and the entire batch would be destroyed. We're holding salad to a higher standard than technology that people are pushing to integrate deeply into society; into classrooms to help educate children, into medical settings to help organise journals and expedite the work of medical staff, into law... the list goes on.

All the models do this, and it causes real harm to people, but other than individual families and such litigating them, no state has stepped in to protect its citizens.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cenzorrll@lemmy.world 23 points 5 days ago

The nice thing about laws is that they don't give a shit. If they say you can't do something, it's your problem to make sure you don't do it.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] naught101@lemmy.world 59 points 5 days ago (3 children)

What about engineering? Food safety? Education? So many other fields could be added

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 29 points 4 days ago

Anything that requires a license is a good start.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 32 points 4 days ago (2 children)

What i don't like about this, is the ignorance towards every other field.

The ai is not allowed to tell you that you might have some illness but the LLM is allowed to vibe code the system that holds your medical data, or the software of the medical device that analyses your e.g. blood and provide the data to the doctor.

Systems and professions are interconnected. Chatgtp telling me that I have cancer is not as bad as chatgtp making mistakes causing my medical data to be stolen and sold.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mynamesnotrick@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I understand the sentiment but I think this is too far of a pushback. Restricting access to information even though it may be inaccurate or misleading isn't the right answer. AI is a tool. I'd wager, force a prompt to specifically be visible whenever subjects break that. Essentially the cigerette equivelant "THIS PRODUCT KILLS YOU" but something like "AI RESPONSES TO MEDICAL INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS ACCURATE."

I feel like this logic should of banned search engines since they could provide links to sites with misinformation.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sudoer777@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

So now you'll have to pay $200 every time you have an important question you need answered? My PCP just tells me to use over the counter products anyways. Also is this NY state or city? Why is there a picture of Mamdani?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bieren@lemmy.today 5 points 3 days ago

I’d rather have AI as the CEO of my company, than as my doctor. But this feels a bit like overreach.

[–] pentastarm@piefed.ca 42 points 5 days ago (4 children)

If those AI techbros could form a coherent thought without AI, they'd be very upset!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago

Add edibility of wild plants to the list please

[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (12 children)

Maybe I'm just ignorant about this, but it feels a bit "gatekeepy" to outlaw answering questions about the law itself. Like... so I can't use an LLM to help do taxes? Or if I'm served a confusing legal document, I have to pay an expensive attorney to understand the legalese? I can't even just get a rough idea from an LLM first?

EDIT: Also I've literally had a professional accountant send me a ChatGPT conversation they had because they didn't know tax law well enough. I feel like if anything that should be outlawed. Professionals should actually have to know shit and know how to research primary sources.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Modern capitalism derives it's scarcity via artificial means such as legislation.

The only thing this does is restrict the means of information to the people of NYC. Have you used traditional web search for health/legal/etc. advice? Even pre-2015 if you didn't know what you're doing you would get the most unhinged, predatory, incorrect advice imaginable, but legislating away access wasn't going to make health information more correct, accurate, or equitable. It would've just further entrenched the predatory health/legal/etc. industry as the gatekeepers of that knowledge.

This is no different.

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (4 children)

I feel like finding and citing appropriate law cases would be a great way for AI to be used, especially because the bullshit legal-ese that surrounds everything in court cases is so spectacularly opaque and trivial that you have to pay out the nose just for someone to parse through all the bullshit... Like, lawyers shouldn't even be a thing you need unless it's for some really complicated case. The courtroom should be a place where an average citizen could speak for themselves.

Also, as someone who studied medicine... Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit? I don't want to imply that they don't know what they're doing, like, you need to study medicine to know what to google, BUT... they still be googling shit. I think AI could be trained to ask the same patient history questions that a nurse asks. Then using the answers to those questions, then they can provide some feedback, with a big ol disclaimer that it's NOT to be taken seriously, and you should consult with a physician.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 11 points 4 days ago (13 children)

When people say "AI" these days, they mean the LLM-derived generative AI such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, and Grok.

These AI systems are not capable of finding authoritative search results. They are good at generating fluent, plausible, context-appropriate text. In legal and medical situations, that's the opposite of what you'd want.

Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit?

Think about how often the doctors land on some pseudo-science result. Now imagine that instead of a doctor it's a patient and instead of asking "could these be related" the patient is told "these are related".

a big ol disclaimer that it’s NOT to be taken seriously

This has worked very well for Fox News, which is not a news agency and is for entertainment purpose only. Also for dietary supplements, which are not medicine.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Can we add to this the engineering of any physical object that could threaten human safety? If this keeps up much longer we're going to have buildings falling on top of us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] obvs@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Counterpoint:

I diagnosed myself with something pretty significant using the internet, and then I went to get evaluated, and my suspicions were confirmed.

This would prevent a lot of good, in addition to preventing some bad.

[–] Calfpupa@lemmy.ml 26 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Using the internet or using a chatbot? Big difference here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I diagnosed myself

using the internet

I'm going to assume you researched medical documents, studies, and journals to link things together, and not ask a chat bot "My foot hurts, what is wrong?"

You're smart enough to self diagnose yourself with readily available information to the public, but not smart enough to not know the difference between that and a chat bot. That's remarkable.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›