I personally consider "I asked ChatGPT to generate a response to you" not witty but a form of an insult. Don't do that please. If that is how you want to talk to people at least don't tell me. It's offensive.
in reply to tante

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

In the movie "A Soldier's Story," the black Captain Davenport visits the white camp commandant's home. The commandant's wife brings the commandant a drink on the hot day, and solicitously offers to "have someone bring you a drink" to Davenport.

Yes, she maintains propriety towards an officer reporting to her husband, but no, she absolutely will not personally hand a drink to a black man.

Same energy.

in reply to tante

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Plan-A

 — (0.0.0.0)

@tante I make my own LLM and learn it with feeds that I scrape from the net to regard that or fallback to cloud DataBase if not covered and no need for internet nor API ... yes , the prompt context is only point of failure but after correcting the thing you have your good answer ; )
Note that I only scrape public domains. Legally with a simple http request to text.
The feed goes into another app the halllucination checker with 5 metrics.
But if you scrape official docs and manpages you can't have any hallucination.

From there it is really the context of your prompt.

in reply to tante

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Plan-A

 — (0.0.0.0)
@tante I know that most use the bad AI "free" but there they are the product and object any propagation of this all. people should use a LLM on local host!
People make me mad with Gemini told me as well you know, but I don't call that proper AI hygiene.
And if it's for ransacking servers by abusing them there is a red line, the difference between my idea and your perception and I agree it is what happens most around us. Is not the same thing.
Something a proper LLM user can not do is reach the internet.
yes laugh.
in reply to tante

The tech industry spent years and billions to create real world products to help businesses get ahead.
futurism.com/future-society/da…

nypost.com/2026/03/25/business…

forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/202…

Now the entire industry has been subsumed into furthering fossil fuel funded fascism, scams, & state surveillance data harvesting.
theguardian.com/technology/202…

washingtonexaminer.com/policy/…

techradar.com/pro/very-signifi…

theguardian.com/technology/202…

reuters.com/technology/britain…

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

sfchronicle.com/tech/article/p…

1/

in reply to tante

putting aside the general hate for these systems, there's actually a clear breakdown in comms if that's how they're choosing to respond.

You're talking to or emailing them because you need some type of information or consensus. ChatGPT cannot generate information or provide consensus. At best it can link to information that exists but isn't somehow visible. Which is a different failing.

Like, we already have enough BS email conversation, I don't need you to use the BS machine to generate more. If you're not using ChatGPT to respond in a structured way, you're just burying other failures in BS.

Which is definitely its own form of failure.

in reply to tante

In this particular circumstance, I don’t think you’re being very fair to the person who told you that they’d sought an answer to a question you asked, and what they found when they did so.

They even took the trouble to tell you the source of what they found, allowing you to judge the credibility of the information.

Of course, you may have thought their choice of resource was not consistent with your way of thinking, and perhaps you assumed that they follow you closely enough to know this (not an unreasonable assumption, if a bit self-centered).

At least you had the decency not to call out the person whose help you rejected and subject them to a pile-on resulting from your own mistaken reading of their reply.

This entry was edited (9 hours ago)