Recent searches
Search options
@xgranade@wandering.shopLLM shilling really strikes me as a form of Gish gallop. If you point out that they don't work as advertised, suddenly the conversation is about how they could work one day. If you point out that there's no theoretical or empirical basis for that expectation, suddenly the conversation is about "democratizing" coding skills. If you point out that there's no evidence LLMs actually accomplish that goal, suddenly the conversation is about AGI or something.
I've made the comparison between AI hype and creationism before, namely in that both require ascribing agency *without evidence* to what is ultimately an unthinking stochastic process. But the comparison between rhetorical styles and techniques is important as well, right down to the use of citation cliques to manufacture the appearance of academic consensus around a strongly non-consensus position.
That comparison goes even deeper, extending into political imperatives as well. With apologies to @skiles.bsky.social@bsky.brid.gy, the cosmology underpinning AI hype has fully merged with that underpinning creationism.
https://bsky.app/profile/skiles.bsky.social/post/3lkwcffxrzk2u
@xgranade as one who is seriously disturbed/annoyed by AI that seems to be repeatedly thrust upon me, I want to note, respectfully, that the phrase "AI shilling" strikes me as a straw man here. That's not to say that AI shilling doesn't happen.
I just can't bring myself to dismiss AI as nothing but worthless garbage in spite of the garbage I've seen it produce.