AI can be good but I’d argue letting an LLM autonomously write a paper is not one of the ways. The risk of it writing factually wrong things is just too great.
To give you an example from astronomy: AI can help filter out “uninteresting” data, which encompasses a large majority of data coming in. It can also help by removing noise from imaging and by drastically speeding up lengthy physical simulations, at the cost of some accuracy.
None of those use cases use LLMs though.
I wanna add to what other users already answered that this problem is not created by federation, only exacerbated.
If I’m mod of a community and I ban your Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world account, I cannot stop you from creating, e.g. Lost_My_M1nd@lemmy.world and coming back. Most servers have some barriers against spam account creation in place, but I’d wager you could easily create a handful of accounts on a server until they start to grip.
Even completely centralized platforms such as Twitter and Reddit are the same. You can easily ban/block evade a couple times per timeframe.
Whcih makes sense when explained, but it seems like few hear that kind of comparison.
And then you bring up defederation and/or how instances can die at any time and you lose them again…
At least that’s how it usually goes for me and trying to advertise Lemmy. Not really a fan of “microblogging” to begin with no matter the platform.
For sure, that’s why my main accusation is them directing traffic to their bad article (could even be an attempt at getting search engines to associate their article with “android games 2024”) and not the AI stuff. I just started with the AI accusation because it was funny to me when OP and you already talked about AI (in games).
AI or not, the post is poorly written and has little to no informative content.
I do agree with you though, some people through around AI accusations way too quickly. Especially when they spot mistakes. LLMs are very good at NOT making grammatical or syntactical mistakes in English. If anything, those mistakes are often a sign of authenticity.
What games use AI to enrich the user experience? Highly doubting that one.
Even more so, I highly suspect OP is written with anything but AI. Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt that they wrote it by hand, it’s very suspicious that their article on mobile games in 2024 has a url that states they’re about 2021 and mentions mostly games from back then. Using the Wayback Machine (I would never give them a click) reveals that it’s (mostly) the same article over all those years with the year in the title updated and some layout changes to fit the layout of the website.
While I cannot say with near certainty that OP is written by AI, I do feel confident saying that this post exists solely to direct traffic to that shitty article.
deleted by creator
I hate to defend Nintendo, but they used their own Emulators in the NES and SNES Mini (Kachikachi and Canoe respectively). I would be surprised if they just yoinked one from the internet here.
I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.
Which brings me back to the last point in my comment.
I also hope I’m right. The two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result. Also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was “No visible damage”.
As I said, I’m not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.
Edit: Formatting
but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument
As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.
That’s not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it’s a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It’s the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh’s painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.
I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.
Re LLM summaries: I’ve noticed that too. For some of my classes shortly after the ChatGPT boom we were allowed to bring along summaries. I tried to feed it input text and told it to break it down into a sentence or two. Often it would just give a short summary about that topic but not actually use the concepts described in the original text.
Also minor nitpick but be wary of the term “accuracy”. It is a terrible metric for most use cases and when a company advertises their AI having a high accuracy they’re likely hiding something. For example, let’s say we wanted to develop a model that can detect cancer on medical images. If our test set consists of 1% cancer inages and 99% normal tissue the 99% accuracy is achieved trivially easy by a model just predicting “no cancer” every time. A lot of the more interesting problems have class imbalances far worse than this one too.