Do you really need to have a list of why people are sick of LLM and Ai slop?

With the number of times that refrain is regurgitated here ad nauseum, need is an odd way to put it. Sick of it might fit sentiments better. Done with this & not giving a shit is another.

If you ever take a flight for holiday, or even drive long distance and cry about AI being bad for the environment then you’re a hypocrite.

Same goes for if you eat beef, or having a really powerful gaming rig that you use a lot.

There are plenty of valid reasons AI is bad, but the argument for the environment seems weak, and most people using it are probably hypocrites. It’s barely a drop in the bucket compared to other things

Lol I didn’t know that the anarchists over at lemmy.dbzer0.com are being corporate apologists. /sarcasm

deleted by creator

Do you really need to have a list of why people are sick of LLM and Ai slop?

We don’t need a collection of random ‘AI bad’ articles because your entire premise is flawed.

In general, people are not ‘sick of LLM and Ai slop’. Real people, who are not chronically online, have fairly positive views of AI and public sentiment about AI is actually becoming more positive over time.

Here is Stanford’s report on the public opinion regarding AI (https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2024-ai-index-report/public-opinion).

Stop being a corporate apologist and stop wreaking the environment with this shit technology.

My dude, it sounds like you need to go out into the environment a bit more.

Ai is literally making people dumber: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lee_2025_ai_critical_thinking_survey.pdf

We surveyed 319 knowledge workers who use GenAI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot) at work at least once per week, to model how they enact critical thinking when using GenAI tools, and how GenAI affects their perceived effort of thinking critically. Analysing 936 real-world GenAI tool use examples our participants shared, we find that knowledge workers engage in critical thinking primarily to ensure the quality of their work, e.g. by verifying outputs against external sources. Moreover, while GenAI can improve worker efficiency, it can inhibit critical engagement with work and can potentially lead to long-term overreliance on the tool and diminished skill for independent problem-solving. Higher confidence in GenAI’s ability to perform a task is related to less critical thinking effort. When using GenAI tools, the effort invested in critical thinking shifts from information gathering to information verification; from problem-solving to AI response integration; and from task execution to task stewardship. Knowledge workers face new challenges in critical thinking as they incorporate GenAI into their knowledge workflows. To that end, our work suggests that GenAI tools need to be designed to support knowledge workers’ critical thinking by addressing their awareness, motivation, and ability barriers.

I would not say “can potentially lead to long-term overreliance on the tool and diminished skill for independent problem-solving” equals to “literally making people dumber”. A sample size of 319 isn’t really representative anyways, and they mainly had a sample of a specific type of people. People switch from searching to verifying, which doesn’t sound too bad if done correctly. They associate critical thinking with verifying everything (“Higher confidence in GenAI’s ability to perform a task is related to less critical thinking effort”), not sure I agree on this.

This study is also only aimed at people working instead of regular use. I personally discovered so many things with GenAI, and know to always question what the model says when it comes to specific topics or questions, because they tend to hallucinate. You could also say internet made people dumber, but those who know how to use it will be smarter.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/18/is_ai_changing_our_brains/

They had to write an essay in 20 minutes… obviously most people would just generate the whole thing and fix little problems here and there, but if you have to think less because you’re just fixing stuff instead on inventing… well yea, you use your brain less. Doesn’t make you dumb? It’s a bit like saying paying by card makes you dumber because you use less of your brain compared to paying in cash because you have to count how much you need to give, and how much you need to get back.

Yes, if you get helped by a tool or someone, it will be less intensive for your brain. Who would have thought?!

deleted by creator

https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about

Are being used to push fascist ideologies into every aspect of the internet:

Everything can be used for that. If anything, I believe AI models are too restricted and tend not to argue on controversial subjects, which prevents you from learning anything. Censorship sucks

They are a massive privacy risk:

I do agree on this, but at this point everyone uses instagram, snapchat, discord and whatever to share their DMs which are probably being sniffed by the NSA and used by companies for profiling. People are never going to change.

Can’t delete this old-ass comment because the fediverse is so free it forces me not to delete it.
Anyway, don’t care, still think the root of the problem are humans, and we will ruin whatever system is in place.
Even if lemmy users want to blindly believe switching from capitalism will be the fix to every single problem.

deleted by creator

Or are you yet another bot lost in the shuffle?

Yes, good job, anybody with opinions you don’t like is a bot.

It’s not like this was even a pro-AI post rather than just pointing out that even the most facile “ai bad, applause please” stuff will get massively upvoted

If we develop them into tools that help assist work.

Spoilers: We will not

I believe the AI business and the tech hype cycle is ultimately harming the field.

I think this is just an American way of doing business. And it’s awful, but at the end of the day people will adopt technology if it makes them greater profit (or at least screws over the correct group of people).

But where the Americanized AI seems to suffer most is in their marketing fully eclipsing their R&D. People seem to have forgotten how DeepSeek spiked the football on OpenAI less than a year ago by making some marginal optimizations to their algorithm.

The field isn’t suffering from the hype cycle nearly so much as it suffers from malinvestment. Huge efforts to make the platform marketable. Huge efforts to shoehorn clumsy chat bots into every nook and cranny of the OS interface. Vanishingly little effort to optimize material consumption or effectively process data or to segregate AI content from the human data it needs to improve.

I need to watch that video. I saw the first post but haven’t caught up yet.

One could have said many of the same thigs about a lot of new technologies.

The Internet, Nuclear, Rockets, Airplanes etc.

Any new disruptive technology comes with drawbacks and can be used for evil.

But that doesn’t mean it’s all bad, or that it doesn’t have its uses.

Yes. AI can be used for spam, job cuts, and creepy surveillance, no argument there, but pretending it’s nothing more than a corporate scam machine is just lazy cynicism. This same “automatic BS” is helping discover life-saving drugs, diagnosing cancers earlier than some doctors, giving deaf people real-time conversations through instant transcription, translating entire languages on the fly, mapping wildfire and flood zones so first responders know exactly where to go, accelerating scientific breakthroughs from climate modeling to space exploration, and cutting out the kind of tedious grunt work that wastes millions of human hours a day. The problem isn’t that AI exists, it’s that a lot of powerful people use it selfishly and irresponsibly. Blaming the tech instead of demanding better governance is like blaming the printing press for bad propaganda.

We should ban computers since they are making mass surveillance easier. /s

Nuance is the thing.

Thinking AI is the devil, will kill your grandma and shit in your shoes is equally as dumb as thinking AI is the solution to any problem, will take over the world and become our overlord.

The truth is, like always, somewhere in between.

I firmly believe we won’t get most of the interesting, “good” AI until after this current AI bubble bursts and goes down in flames. Once AI hardware is cheap interesting people will use it to make cool things. But right now, the big players in the space are drowning out anyone who might do real AI work that has potential, by throwing more and more hardware and money at LLMs and generative AI models because they don’t understand the technology and see it as a way to get rich and powerful quickly.

Yeah, except it’s a tool that most people don’t know how to use but everyone can use, leading to environmental harm, a rapid loss of media literacy, and a huge increase in wealth inequality due to turmoil in the job market.

So… It’s not a good tool for the average layperson to be using.

Seriously, the AI hate gets old fast. Like you said it’s a tool, gey get over it people.

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”

Edit:

Controversial reply, apparently, but this is literally part of the script to a Philosophy Tube video (relevant part is 8:40 - 20:10)

We sometimes think that technology is essentially neutral. It can have good or bad effects, and it might be really important who controls it. But a tool, many people like to think, is just a tool. “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But some philosophers have argued that technology can have values built into it that we may not realise.

…

The philosopher Don Idhe says tech can open or close possibilities. It’s not just about its function or who controls it. He says technology can provide a framework for action.

…

Martin Heidegger was a student of Husserl’s, and he wrote about the ways that we experience the world when we use a piece of technology. His most famous example was a hammer. He said when you use one you don’t even think about the hammer. You focus on the nail. The hammer almost disappears in your experience. And you just focus on the task that needs to be performed.

Another example might be a keyboard. Once you get proficient at typing, you almost stop experiencing the keyboard. Instead, your primary experience is just of the words that you’re typing on the screen. It’s only when it breaks or it doesn’t do what we want it to do, that it really becomes visible as a piece of technology. The rest of the time it’s just the medium through which we experience the world.

Heidegger talks about technology withdrawing from our attention. Others say that technology becomes transparent. We don’t experience it. We experience the world through it. Heidegger says that technology comes with its own way of seeing.

…

Now some of you are looking at me like “Bull sh*t. A person using a hammer is just a person using a hammer!” But there might actually be some evidence from neurology to support this.

If you give a monkey a rake that it has to use to reach a piece of food, then the neurons in its brain that fire when there’s a visual stimulus near its hand start firing when there’s a stimulus near the end of the rake, too! The monkey’s brain extends its sense of the monkey body to include the tool!

And now here’s the final step. The philosopher Bruno Latour says that when this happens, when the technology becomes transparent enough to get incorporated into our sense of self and our experience of the world, a new compound entity is formed.

A person using a hammer is actually a new subject with its own way of seeing - ‘hammerman.’ That’s how technology provides a framework for action and being. Rake + monkey = rakemonkey. Makeup + girl is makeupgirl, and makeupgirl experiences the world differently, has a different kind of subjectivity because the tech lends us its way of seeing.

You think guns don’t kill people, people do? Well, gun + man creates a new entity with new possibilities for experience and action - gunman!

So if we’re onto something here with this idea that tech can withdraw from our attention and in so doing create new subjects with new ways of seeing, then it makes sense to ask when a new piece of technology comes along, what kind of people will this turn us into.

I thought that we were pretty solidly past the idea that anything is “just a tool” after seeing Twitler scramble Grok’s innards to advance his personal politics.

Like, if you still had any lingering belief that AI is “like a hammer”, that really should’ve extinguished it.

But I guess some people see that as an aberrant misuse of AI, and not an indication that all AI has an agenda baked into it, even if it’s more subtle.

A hammer doesn’t consume exorbitant amounts of power and water.

Extreme oversimplification. Hammers don’t kill the planet by simply existing.

deleted by creator

He’s made the World wake up to the fact that they can’t trust the US, so that can be seen as good?

AI isn’t that black and white, just like any big technology it can be used for good or bad.

Just like Airplanes

It would still be a performative post though.

What we need is a circlejerk@ community

When people say this they are usually talking about a very specific sort of generative LLM using unsupervised learning.

AI is a very broad field with great potential, the improvements in cancer screening alone could save millions of lives over the coming decades. At the core it’s just math, and the equations have been in use for almost as long as we’ve had computers. It’s no more good or bad than calculus or trigonometry.

So is eating meat, flying, gaming, going om holiday, basically if you exist you should feel bad

Would love an explanation on how I’m in the wrong on reducing my work week from 40 hours to 15 using AI.

Existing in predatory capitalistic system and putting the blame on those who utilize available tools to reduce the predatory nature of our system is insane.

You mean a subset of LLM that are trained on bad human behaviours