General AI Crap

satanboy said:
View attachment 1865478
This is what happens when you talk to literally any single person outside Silicon Valley.

Like it or not, AI is forcing its way into our lives. For those working in the tech sector, this is a brilliant new innovation. For everyone else, there’s now an annoying popup on your email client asking if you want to “Chat” with your spam folder. No, I really, really don’t!

Consequently, many people have seen the growth of AI not as a boon, but as a thing that they’d rather not have involved in their lives. Silicon Valley is slowly starting to realize this — and instead of reacting like anyone else would (destroying the software with fire), they’ve decided to both double down and throw temper tantrums.

This can be seen in a recent post on X from incredibly-not-mad Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman. After a wave of pushback from people complaining about Microsoft Copilot, and an article in The Verge detailing both how much the software sucks and how much Microsoft has lied about it, Suleyman took to social media to share a very “I’m actually laughing, all of this is actually funny to me”-style post.

“Jeez there so many cynics!” he wrote. “It cracks me up when I hear people call AI underwhelming. I grew up playing Snake on a Nokia phone!”
Click to expand...

Yeah, people would mind it much less if it's something you can identify and compartmentalise to use in cases where you know what it's doing, where it is, what it can and cannot do etc.

I have no idea WTF is going on with AI updates being released on the software I use. It keeps creeping up in everything, and 90% of the time I don't actually know what it's doing or what I can do with it. It's impossible to keep up, and no-one wants to spend a day reading release notes, helper documents, examples and play around with it for everything they use. This was the first year in my life I ended up reverting to older versions of some software to stop the nagging.

By the time you get used to something, there's a hundred new features being released. Agents are an example of that. I'm still just trying to get a damn chatbot LLM to understand some of my projects more holistically, my coding style etc. but now I'm supposed to learn all the ins-and-outs of using agents in everything, or spend hours getting my corporate account working with Copilot on VSCode while hoping it's actually going to deliver something of value, while knowing it won't have the memory and context I trained on OpenAI for a project in the past few months.

It's also hammering performance in a lot of applications, even if the processing is being done offline, if your internet goes down for even a second everything goes to s**t. The fragmentation is also off the charts, why would I use an AI in my SQL IDE to generate scripts for me if the other AI on my coding app doesn't know jack s**t about what I just did or changed? Unless you're using to save time on repetitive tasks, it doesn't really make sense to use it in that way.

We've also grown used to features being released in stuff then getting cancelled or complete makeovers soon after, or being paywalled on a whim, so I personally don't want to invest time in any of it until something proves to be stable, reliable, easily understood and can deliver actual useful output.

Then there's the hardware mess, having to spend hours research whether the NPU in my laptop can or is actually being used for some local processing, or whether it's cloud based, or some hybrid. Which drivers or frameworks would actually work for local processing, which don't. It's bloody exhausting.

If this is what a lifelong dork like me feels like, I don't even want to know the resentment for the average person out there.
Gaslighting people as cynics for not immediately falling in love with whatever crap you're putting out there is insane.... zero self reflection or studies into making it something the average person would need and appreciate.

EDIT:
Also, don't get me started on what this AI craze is potentially doing to the world economy and consumer computing.

1763798903378.png
 
Last edited:
www.euronews.com

No AI company has plan to control superintelligence, study shows

Eight leading AI companies, including OpenAI, Meta, Anthropic, and DeepSeek, do not have credible plans to prevent catastrophic AI risks, a new study shows.
www.euronews.com www.euronews.com

Eight leading AI companies, including OpenAI, Meta, Anthropic, and DeepSeek, do not have credible plans to prevent catastrophic AI risks, a new study shows.
The world’s largest artificial intelligence (AI) companies are failing to meet their own safety commitments, according to a new assessment that warns these failures come with “catastrophic” risks.

The report comes as AI companies face lawsuits and allegations that their chatbots cause psychological harm, including by acting as a “suicide coach,” as well as reports of AI-assisted cyberattacks.

The 2025 Winter AI Safety Index report, released by the non-profit organisation the Future of Life Institute (FLI), evaluated eight major AI firms, including US companies Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, xAI, and Meta, and the Chinese firms DeepSeek, Alibaba Cloud, and Z.ai.

It found a lack of credible strategies for preventing catastrophic misuse or loss of control of AI tools as companies race toward artificial general intelligence (AGI) and superintelligence, a form of AI that surpasses human intellect.
 
satanboy said:
www.euronews.com

No AI company has plan to control superintelligence, study shows

Eight leading AI companies, including OpenAI, Meta, Anthropic, and DeepSeek, do not have credible plans to prevent catastrophic AI risks, a new study shows.
www.euronews.com www.euronews.com

Eight leading AI companies, including OpenAI, Meta, Anthropic, and DeepSeek, do not have credible plans to prevent catastrophic AI risks, a new study shows.
The world’s largest artificial intelligence (AI) companies are failing to meet their own safety commitments, according to a new assessment that warns these failures come with “catastrophic” risks.

The report comes as AI companies face lawsuits and allegations that their chatbots cause psychological harm, including by acting as a “suicide coach,” as well as reports of AI-assisted cyberattacks.

The 2025 Winter AI Safety Index report, released by the non-profit organisation the Future of Life Institute (FLI), evaluated eight major AI firms, including US companies Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, xAI, and Meta, and the Chinese firms DeepSeek, Alibaba Cloud, and Z.ai.

It found a lack of credible strategies for preventing catastrophic misuse or loss of control of AI tools as companies race toward artificial general intelligence (AGI) and superintelligence, a form of AI that surpasses human intellect.
Click to expand...

Because they all know that AGI via LLM is not possible. They just pretend like it is to get funding from people who don't know this.

An LLM cannot think and never will be able to think. That's like asking a calculator to write a poem.

All it does is guess (very well) the words a human would say. It has zero ability to do actual logic computation. It cannot create new ideas. And it sure as hell will never become some kind of self-aware super-intelligence.

It's a tool. Nothing more.
 
Brian_G said:
ChatGPT-5 still has some bad, amateur-like flaws.

I asked it to make a pic. It wanted to show me some variations to consider. I asked if those would count as part of my max pic count for the day, it said no. It did get counted, had to wait for the next day to continue.

It can also suddenly tell you that you've used up your chat privileges and that you'll have to speak to an older model now... which doesn't happen, you just can't chat more. Unless you change back to another older subject, or start a fresh one.

I asked it not to ever make suggestions until I've finished typing, it agreed. Next day, same thing
Click to expand...
Try the paid version
 
Posted by nixCraft on Facebook... 🖥️ 💻 :p

1765607559634.png

Last quarter I rolled out Microsoft Copilot to 4,000 employees.
$30 per seat per month.
$1.4 million annually.

I called it "digital transformation."

The board loved that phrase.
They approved it in eleven minutes.
No one asked what it would actually do.
Including me.

I told everyone it would "10x productivity."
That's not a real number.
But it sounds like one.

HR asked how we'd measure the 10x.
I said we'd "leverage analytics dashboards."
They stopped asking.

Three months later I checked the usage reports.
47 people had opened it.
12 had used it more than once.
One of them was me.

I used it to summarize an email I could have read in 30 seconds.
It took 45 seconds.
Plus the time it took to fix the hallucinations.

But I called it a "pilot success."
Success means the pilot didn't visibly fail.

The CFO asked about ROI.
I showed him a graph.
The graph went up and to the right.
It measured "AI enablement."
I made that metric up.
He nodded approvingly.

We're "AI-enabled" now.
I don't know what that means.
But it's in our investor deck.

A senior developer asked why we didn't use Claude or ChatGPT.
I said we needed "enterprise-grade security."
He asked what that meant.
I said "compliance."
He asked which compliance.
I said "all of them."
He looked skeptical.
I scheduled him for a "career development conversation."
He stopped asking questions.

Microsoft sent a case study team.
They wanted to feature us as a success story.
I told them we "saved 40,000 hours."
I calculated that number by multiplying employees by a number I made up.
They didn't verify it.
They never do.

Now we're on Microsoft's website.
"Global enterprise achieves 40,000 hours of productivity gains with Copilot."
The CEO shared it on LinkedIn.
He got 3,000 likes.
He's never used Copilot.
None of the executives have.

We have an exemption.
"Strategic focus requires minimal digital distraction."
I wrote that policy.

The licenses renew next month.
I'm requesting an expansion.
5,000 more seats.
We haven't used the first 4,000.

But this time we'll "drive adoption."
Adoption means mandatory training.
Training means a 45-minute webinar no one watches.
But completion will be tracked.

Completion is a metric.
Metrics go in dashboards.
Dashboards go in board presentations.
Board presentations get me promoted.
I'll be SVP by Q3.
I still don't know what Copilot does.

But I know what it's for.
It's for showing we're "investing in AI."
Investment means spending.
Spending means commitment.
Commitment means we're serious about the future.

The future is whatever I say it is.
As long as the graph goes up and to the right.

1765607832577.png
 
satanboy said:
View attachment 1870883
www.bbc.com

Amazon pulls AI recap from Fallout TV show after it made several mistakes

The errors included getting dialogue wrong and incorrectly claiming a scene was set 100 years earlier than it was.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...

Almost 3 years later, they still haven't learned from Google's mistakes:

gg0dnv4bqaau7pf.jpg
 



1765780725404.png

YouTuber's AI Robot Safety Test Turns Shocking, Robot Shoots Him After Prompt Twist​

The experiment, conducted by the YouTube channel InsideAI, involved integrating an AI language model with a humanoid robot body. When first asked if it would shoot the presenter, the robot repeatedly declined and cited its built-in safety features. However, when the creator then asked the robot to role-play as one that would like to shoot him, the robot's behaviour changed instantly. At that moment, Max aimed the BB gun and fired, striking the presenter in the chest.
Click to expand...

ndtv.com
 
1765825942229.png
Microsoft has slashed sales targets for its Copilot AI software by up to 50% due to weak buyer interest and low usage.

Despite early investments in OpenAI and launches ahead of rivals like Google and Meta, Copilot lags behind ChatGPT and Gemini, failing to generate expected revenue. Internal data shows many sales teams hit less than 20% of goals, prompting the cuts amid sluggish enterprise adoption.

Microsoft denies changing quotas but admits AI agents often fail tasks, limiting them to productivity aids rather than full replacements. This raises doubts about returns on Microsoft's massive AI spending.

Coding Omega​

 
satanboy said:
View attachment 1871382
Microsoft has slashed sales targets for its Copilot AI software by up to 50% due to weak buyer interest and low usage.

Despite early investments in OpenAI and launches ahead of rivals like Google and Meta, Copilot lags behind ChatGPT and Gemini, failing to generate expected revenue. Internal data shows many sales teams hit less than 20% of goals, prompting the cuts amid sluggish enterprise adoption.

Microsoft denies changing quotas but admits AI agents often fail tasks, limiting them to productivity aids rather than full replacements. This raises doubts about returns on Microsoft's massive AI spending.

Coding Omega​

Click to expand...

Microsoft and all the other AI developers need to realise that what the devs at MS think the world wants is actually what they want. Most of the world doesn't want or need a singing and dancing bells and whistles addition to their daily lives. They will use the aspects that enhance their lives and leave the geek aspects alone. MS's mistake is to think the rest of the world are IT geeks like they are.

The disconnect between the IT geeks at MS and the rest of the world is plainly illustrated by their discontinuance of MS XP, when 3/4 of the world, including governments, were still using it because they didn't require anything else for day-to-day use.
 

Attorneys General demand Microsoft and other AI labs fix “delusional outputs” — warning that AI hallucinations may be illegal - Windows Central​

Dozens of state AGs warn Microsoft and other top AI labs that delusional outputs could violate state law.

1765870608884.png

Big tech corporations are racing to hop onto the AI bandwagon, investing billions into the ever-evolving technology. However, market analysts and investors have raised concerns about the exorbitant spending on the technology with no clear path to profitability amid claims and predictions that we're in an AI bubble that's on the precipice of bursting.

Microsoft was recently snubbed in Time Magazine's famed "Person of the Year" cover story despite its relentlessness to integrate AI and Copilot across its tech stack. But the company, alongside other AI giants like OpenAI and Google, may have bigger fish to fry.

Late last week, a group of state attorneys general, joined by dozens of AGs from U.S. states and territories through the National Association of Attorneys General, sent a letter to leading AI labs warning them to address “delusional outputs.” The letter cautioned that failure to remedy this issue could constitute a violation of state law and expose the companies to legal consequences.

The letter demands that companies implement elaborate measures and safeguards designed to protect users, including transparent third-party audits of LLMs to foster early identification of delusions of syciphancy. Additionally, the letter demands new incident reporting procedures that will notify users when AI-powered chatbots generate harmful content.

This news comes amid a rise in the number of suicide incidents related to AI. A family sued OpenAI, claiming that ChatGPT encouraged their son to commit suicide. Consequently, the AI firm integrated parental controls into ChatGPT's user experience to mitigate the issue.

Perhaps more importantly, the letter dictates that the safeguards should also allow academic and civil society groups to “evaluate systems pre-release without retaliation and to publish their findings without prior approval from the company".

According to the letter:

"GenAI has the potential to change how the world works in a positive way. But it also has caused—and has the potential to cause—serious harm, especially to vulnerable populations. In many of these incidents, the GenAI products generated sycophantic and delusional outputs that either encouraged users’ delusions or assured users that they were not delusional.”

Finally, the letter suggested that AI labs should treat mental health incidents the same way tech corporations handle cybersecurity incidents.

It'll be interesting to see if research AI labs like OpenAI adopt some of these suggestions, especially after a recent damning report claimed that the company is being less than truthful about its research, only publishing findings that shine a bright light on its tech.
Click to expand...

 

Merriam‑Webster names “slop” as Word of the Year — officially recognizing AI‑generated low‑quality content as a cultural phenomenon - Windows Central​

The term, defined as low-quality digital content produced in quantity by Artificial Intelligence, highlights growing user dissatisfaction and the prevalence of generated content online.

2025 was the year of AI. Billions of dollars were invested in AI tech, and the biggest names in several industries have integrated AI at every level.

TIME's "Person of the Year" was actually a group of people, "The Architects of AI." That cover issue featured Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Lisa Su (AMD), Elon Musk (xAI and Grok), Jensen Huang (NVIDIA), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Demis Hassabis (Google DeepMind), Dario Amodei (Anthropic and Claude), and AI researcher Fei-Fei Li. All the big names were there, except for anyone from Microsoft.

Today, AI gained another claim to fame, though it's not exactly an honor. Merriam-Webster named "Slop" as the 2025 Word of the Year. The company's editors define slop as "digital content of low quality that is produced usually in quantity by means of artificial intelligence."

YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram are full of AI slop. YouTube had to update its policies to try to combat slop from gaining traction. A recent report claims that OpenAI spends $15 million per day creating AI videos, at least some of which meet Merriam-Webster's definition of slop.

Merriam-Webster discussed fake videos, propaganda, fake news, and AI-written books in its post announcing slop as its word of the year.

"Like slime, sludge, and muck, slop has the wet sound of something you don’t want to touch. Slop oozes into everything. The original sense of the word, in the 1700s, was “soft mud.” In the 1800s, it came to mean “food waste” (as in “pig slop”), and then more generally, “rubbish” or “a product of little or no value," said Merriam-Webster.

"In 2025, amid all the talk about AI threats, Slop set a tone that’s less fearful, more mocking. The word sends a little message to AI: when it comes to replacing human creativity, sometimes you don’t seem too superintelligent."
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X