My biggest problem with the concept of LLMs, even if they weren’t a giant plagiarism laundering machine and disaster for the environment, is that they introduce so much unpredictability into computing.
-
@JoscelynTransient @twipped As a total side note, I love how the HowToADHD girl has started an entire YouTube career around infodumping about ADHD coping strategies and hasn't come out as autistic yet.
-
My biggest problem with the concept of LLMs, even if they weren’t a giant plagiarism laundering machine and disaster for the environment, is that they introduce so much unpredictability into computing. I became a professional computer toucher because they do exactly what you tell them to. Not always what you wanted, but exactly what you asked for.
LLMs turn that upside down. They turn a very autistic do-what-you-say, say-what-you-mean commmunication style with the machine into a neurotypical conversation talking around the issue, but never directly addressing the substance of problem.
In any conversation I have with a person, I’m modeling their understanding of the topic at hand, trying to tailor my communication style to their needs. The same applies to programming languages and frameworks. If you work with a language the way its author intended it goes a lot easier.
But LLMs don’t have an understanding of the conversation. There is no intent. It’s just a mostly-likely-next-word generator on steroids. You’re trying to give directions to a lossily compressed copy of the entire works of human writing. There is no mind to model, and no predictability to the output.
If I wanted to spend my time communicating in a superficial, neurotypical style my autistic ass certainly wouldn’t have gone into computering. LLMs are the final act of the finance bros and capitalists wrestling modern technology away from the technically literate proletariat who built it.
@EmilyEnough @drahardja
Exactly. I too need my automations to be deterministic. The element of surprise is fine for a novel, but not for a health care integration. -
@twipped on a serious note though, I really am not on the spectrum. Seriously considered it, but I fail almost every aspect, from not getting overstimulated and needing to actively work to understand what causes that for my autistic friends to being guilty of failing to be explicit and direct enough with autistic friends and causing communication difficulties (thanks to living in Japan and Japanese language contexts for a number of years, I actually sometimes am too indirect for neurotypical USians even).
A person can just be severely ADHD and have the overlapping manifestations like hyperfocus, communication difficulties with more neurotypically-aligned folks, and Infodumping. To be a bit more direct: It does feel a bit invalidating to have people insist ADHD doesn’t exist or have some of these manifestations, so would really encourage people not to do that please?
-
@faithisleaping @twipped hey, adhd people also hyper focus and infodump! This isn’t only an autistic thing
@faithisleaping @twipped going to leave this here too. Kinda don’t like where this joke is heading, cause it’s kind of miserable having people deny one’s ADHD symptoms
-
@EmilyEnough “ You’re trying to give directions to a lossily compressed copy of the entire works of human writing.” — Perfect.
-
@faithisleaping @twipped hey, adhd people also hyper focus and infodump! This isn’t only an autistic thing
@JoscelynTransient@chaosfem.tw I'm sitting here with both, and I can infodump in two different modes. They feel very different, even if they look the same from the outside.
@twipped@twipped.social @faithisleaping@anarres.family -
@faithisleaping @twipped going to leave this here too. Kinda don’t like where this joke is heading, cause it’s kind of miserable having people deny one’s ADHD symptoms
@JoscelynTransient I'm sorry. I was just being playful. I didn't mean to deny your ADHD struggles. FWIW, I can usually clock an autistic person at a mile and I'm also pretty sure you're not. I'm just making dumb (and apparently insensitive) jokes.
-
@JoscelynTransient I'm sorry. I was just being playful. I didn't mean to deny your ADHD struggles. FWIW, I can usually clock an autistic person at a mile and I'm also pretty sure you're not. I'm just making dumb (and apparently insensitive) jokes.
@faithisleaping @twipped oh, I knew you were joking around…it just was building really quickly in a direction that made me uncomfortable. I also suspect I might be on my period and extra sensitive right now
And for the record, I would be very happy to also be autistic if that was the case. And I was giggling at first too with the jokes.
-
@mikemccaffrey @EmilyEnough The "you can write natural language queries" idea has always gotten a response from me of "why the fuck would I want to do that?" Standard search engine queries and stuff are so much easier.
@gourd @mikemccaffrey @EmilyEnough I completely agree, and what is "natural language" anyway?! Sounds like an ableist agenda, right?
-
My biggest problem with the concept of LLMs, even if they weren’t a giant plagiarism laundering machine and disaster for the environment, is that they introduce so much unpredictability into computing. I became a professional computer toucher because they do exactly what you tell them to. Not always what you wanted, but exactly what you asked for.
LLMs turn that upside down. They turn a very autistic do-what-you-say, say-what-you-mean commmunication style with the machine into a neurotypical conversation talking around the issue, but never directly addressing the substance of problem.
In any conversation I have with a person, I’m modeling their understanding of the topic at hand, trying to tailor my communication style to their needs. The same applies to programming languages and frameworks. If you work with a language the way its author intended it goes a lot easier.
But LLMs don’t have an understanding of the conversation. There is no intent. It’s just a mostly-likely-next-word generator on steroids. You’re trying to give directions to a lossily compressed copy of the entire works of human writing. There is no mind to model, and no predictability to the output.
If I wanted to spend my time communicating in a superficial, neurotypical style my autistic ass certainly wouldn’t have gone into computering. LLMs are the final act of the finance bros and capitalists wrestling modern technology away from the technically literate proletariat who built it.
@EmilyEnough@hachyderm.io To paraphrase some random professional in the industry no one cares about: "If English and other natural languages were specific enough to describe tasks to a computer, we wouldn't have invented programming languages, and bugs wouldn't happen." (Uncle Bob)
Some people just refuse to understand that you can't solve all of your problems by speaking English. -
My biggest problem with the concept of LLMs, even if they weren’t a giant plagiarism laundering machine and disaster for the environment, is that they introduce so much unpredictability into computing. I became a professional computer toucher because they do exactly what you tell them to. Not always what you wanted, but exactly what you asked for.
LLMs turn that upside down. They turn a very autistic do-what-you-say, say-what-you-mean commmunication style with the machine into a neurotypical conversation talking around the issue, but never directly addressing the substance of problem.
In any conversation I have with a person, I’m modeling their understanding of the topic at hand, trying to tailor my communication style to their needs. The same applies to programming languages and frameworks. If you work with a language the way its author intended it goes a lot easier.
But LLMs don’t have an understanding of the conversation. There is no intent. It’s just a mostly-likely-next-word generator on steroids. You’re trying to give directions to a lossily compressed copy of the entire works of human writing. There is no mind to model, and no predictability to the output.
If I wanted to spend my time communicating in a superficial, neurotypical style my autistic ass certainly wouldn’t have gone into computering. LLMs are the final act of the finance bros and capitalists wrestling modern technology away from the technically literate proletariat who built it.
@EmilyEnough this makes me wonder if only NT people fall for LLMs, because ND people just take one look and go "this thing is a liar"
-
My biggest problem with the concept of LLMs, even if they weren’t a giant plagiarism laundering machine and disaster for the environment, is that they introduce so much unpredictability into computing. I became a professional computer toucher because they do exactly what you tell them to. Not always what you wanted, but exactly what you asked for.
LLMs turn that upside down. They turn a very autistic do-what-you-say, say-what-you-mean commmunication style with the machine into a neurotypical conversation talking around the issue, but never directly addressing the substance of problem.
In any conversation I have with a person, I’m modeling their understanding of the topic at hand, trying to tailor my communication style to their needs. The same applies to programming languages and frameworks. If you work with a language the way its author intended it goes a lot easier.
But LLMs don’t have an understanding of the conversation. There is no intent. It’s just a mostly-likely-next-word generator on steroids. You’re trying to give directions to a lossily compressed copy of the entire works of human writing. There is no mind to model, and no predictability to the output.
If I wanted to spend my time communicating in a superficial, neurotypical style my autistic ass certainly wouldn’t have gone into computering. LLMs are the final act of the finance bros and capitalists wrestling modern technology away from the technically literate proletariat who built it.
@EmilyEnough I think llm's have some buttons and knobs, but it is mostly self-reflection. I'm astonished how fast it picks a vibe(not necessarily what I want or need, but it is a possible reaction).
I can see that 2 people get completely different results just because they frase their Idee different.
It reminds me of Google search geniuses and when Google not just had the mainstream results.But I think it is a hype and used extractive. I don't see reasonable use from the commercial side.
-
@EmilyEnough I think llm's have some buttons and knobs, but it is mostly self-reflection. I'm astonished how fast it picks a vibe(not necessarily what I want or need, but it is a possible reaction).
I can see that 2 people get completely different results just because they frase their Idee different.
It reminds me of Google search geniuses and when Google not just had the mainstream results.But I think it is a hype and used extractive. I don't see reasonable use from the commercial side.
I felt the knowledge of the world were at my fingertips and there were so many authentic, unique and interesting people/projects on the internet(2008).
Today the internet is to much for me.
I can't even find the things that I know exist. And I think it is because of semantic search, my google-fu does not work anymore. It is frustrating for me, but that's how it is today and likely I just have to bend to majority needs/capitalism. -
My biggest problem with the concept of LLMs, even if they weren’t a giant plagiarism laundering machine and disaster for the environment, is that they introduce so much unpredictability into computing. I became a professional computer toucher because they do exactly what you tell them to. Not always what you wanted, but exactly what you asked for.
LLMs turn that upside down. They turn a very autistic do-what-you-say, say-what-you-mean commmunication style with the machine into a neurotypical conversation talking around the issue, but never directly addressing the substance of problem.
In any conversation I have with a person, I’m modeling their understanding of the topic at hand, trying to tailor my communication style to their needs. The same applies to programming languages and frameworks. If you work with a language the way its author intended it goes a lot easier.
But LLMs don’t have an understanding of the conversation. There is no intent. It’s just a mostly-likely-next-word generator on steroids. You’re trying to give directions to a lossily compressed copy of the entire works of human writing. There is no mind to model, and no predictability to the output.
If I wanted to spend my time communicating in a superficial, neurotypical style my autistic ass certainly wouldn’t have gone into computering. LLMs are the final act of the finance bros and capitalists wrestling modern technology away from the technically literate proletariat who built it.
@EmilyEnough
How right and on point you are -
@JoscelynTransient@chaosfem.tw I'm sitting here with both, and I can infodump in two different modes. They feel very different, even if they look the same from the outside.
@twipped@twipped.social @faithisleaping@anarres.family@thatfrisiangirlish Okay, I'm very curious about this distinction, would you mind elaborating? Asking for, uhm, me.
-
My biggest problem with the concept of LLMs, even if they weren’t a giant plagiarism laundering machine and disaster for the environment, is that they introduce so much unpredictability into computing. I became a professional computer toucher because they do exactly what you tell them to. Not always what you wanted, but exactly what you asked for.
LLMs turn that upside down. They turn a very autistic do-what-you-say, say-what-you-mean commmunication style with the machine into a neurotypical conversation talking around the issue, but never directly addressing the substance of problem.
In any conversation I have with a person, I’m modeling their understanding of the topic at hand, trying to tailor my communication style to their needs. The same applies to programming languages and frameworks. If you work with a language the way its author intended it goes a lot easier.
But LLMs don’t have an understanding of the conversation. There is no intent. It’s just a mostly-likely-next-word generator on steroids. You’re trying to give directions to a lossily compressed copy of the entire works of human writing. There is no mind to model, and no predictability to the output.
If I wanted to spend my time communicating in a superficial, neurotypical style my autistic ass certainly wouldn’t have gone into computering. LLMs are the final act of the finance bros and capitalists wrestling modern technology away from the technically literate proletariat who built it.
@EmilyEnough Yeah I stopped reading when you disrespected autism
-
My biggest problem with the concept of LLMs, even if they weren’t a giant plagiarism laundering machine and disaster for the environment, is that they introduce so much unpredictability into computing. I became a professional computer toucher because they do exactly what you tell them to. Not always what you wanted, but exactly what you asked for.
LLMs turn that upside down. They turn a very autistic do-what-you-say, say-what-you-mean commmunication style with the machine into a neurotypical conversation talking around the issue, but never directly addressing the substance of problem.
In any conversation I have with a person, I’m modeling their understanding of the topic at hand, trying to tailor my communication style to their needs. The same applies to programming languages and frameworks. If you work with a language the way its author intended it goes a lot easier.
But LLMs don’t have an understanding of the conversation. There is no intent. It’s just a mostly-likely-next-word generator on steroids. You’re trying to give directions to a lossily compressed copy of the entire works of human writing. There is no mind to model, and no predictability to the output.
If I wanted to spend my time communicating in a superficial, neurotypical style my autistic ass certainly wouldn’t have gone into computering. LLMs are the final act of the finance bros and capitalists wrestling modern technology away from the technically literate proletariat who built it.
@EmilyEnough I think they only have a future and indeed utility when 1) run locally, 2) being based not on stolen data and 3) being highly customized to a specific task (there’s a few tasks I find them useful for, e.g. searching a text corpus with very vague terms)
and definitely not with a subservient chatbot userinterface
-
@EmilyEnough I think they only have a future and indeed utility when 1) run locally, 2) being based not on stolen data and 3) being highly customized to a specific task (there’s a few tasks I find them useful for, e.g. searching a text corpus with very vague terms)
and definitely not with a subservient chatbot userinterface
@EmilyEnough (fwiw I think that ALL of the “AI” companies are some form of investment scam)
-
@thatfrisiangirlish Okay, I'm very curious about this distinction, would you mind elaborating? Asking for, uhm, me.
@anyia@lgbtqia.space This is largely a work in progress for myself, as well, so there are some edges that I'm not too sure about myself, and it's definitely a subjective thing - this certainly works like that for me, but for yo or anyone else, I don't have the faintest idea.
Type A is mostly structured, and basically there to share something with you that I find extremely interesting. To do this justice, and to give you the full picture like you deserve, I have to give you the exhaistive rundown. I looked hard into this, and I'm just so excited to share this with you! This is mostly motivated by some need to share, meant to convey a complex bit of information, and I'll probably get upset if you're not excited, as well.
Type B is more exploratory, where I mostly verbalize the train of thought going on in my head. And believe you me, I can think and speak like an extremely pedantic text book. What I say draws on other things I know, but I am not quite sure where this one goes. This is mostly motivated by sharing my thoughts on a topic as they happen, meant to collaboratively work on a topic, but unfortunately, I'll get very upset if you cut into this, because that's cutting right into my thought process, and who likes to be interrupted just as you have an idea at the tip of your tongue.
Anyway, I don't know which belongs where, or even if they belong to specific neurotypes, but it is a hypothesis. From the outside, both probably feel quite like getting this text read at you at pretty high speed.
@twipped@twipped.social @JoscelynTransient@chaosfem.tw @faithisleaping@anarres.family -
My biggest problem with the concept of LLMs, even if they weren’t a giant plagiarism laundering machine and disaster for the environment, is that they introduce so much unpredictability into computing. I became a professional computer toucher because they do exactly what you tell them to. Not always what you wanted, but exactly what you asked for.
LLMs turn that upside down. They turn a very autistic do-what-you-say, say-what-you-mean commmunication style with the machine into a neurotypical conversation talking around the issue, but never directly addressing the substance of problem.
In any conversation I have with a person, I’m modeling their understanding of the topic at hand, trying to tailor my communication style to their needs. The same applies to programming languages and frameworks. If you work with a language the way its author intended it goes a lot easier.
But LLMs don’t have an understanding of the conversation. There is no intent. It’s just a mostly-likely-next-word generator on steroids. You’re trying to give directions to a lossily compressed copy of the entire works of human writing. There is no mind to model, and no predictability to the output.
If I wanted to spend my time communicating in a superficial, neurotypical style my autistic ass certainly wouldn’t have gone into computering. LLMs are the final act of the finance bros and capitalists wrestling modern technology away from the technically literate proletariat who built it.
@EmilyEnough I have a slightly different view. An LLM has some of the same language processing issues that I do, to the point that “I have LLM brain” is a useful cognitive model. It makes them surprisingly easy to “play” for me. The ability to take something I don’t understand and rewrite it into something else that aligns better with the corpus of normals-thought is definitely useful to me for understanding how normal communicate and bypassing my own limitations there.
