this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
61 points (98.4% liked)
Linux
48009 readers
848 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this comment reads suspiciously like it was written by an LLM (eg ChatGPT). was it? please don't do that!
I tried asking for sources before, and they were all wrong, either non-existant or not even about the topic, some were just random urls.
Do LLMs give citations? Otherwise, I could agree.
do they ever!
(The citations in this comment appear to be all real links about NixOS, but they are not particularly relevant to the places in the comment where they're cited.)
Bing 'chat mode' (read: hooked GPT-4 to their search engine) does in essentially this format.
I don't know whether just using an LLM is a problem. But in your case I would say the fact you used one and didn't indicate you did. If you indicated the answer came from an LLM, then the trust in the answer could be weighted accordingly by each user.
That's my opinion at any rate.
If OP wanted a response from an LLM, they would have typed their question into an LLM. The least you could do is label it as such.
I think you should.
You mean like a username that is listed in the header of every post and comment?
What?
I'm also curious why you feel the need to have an LLM edit your writing. What did you do before an LLM? And what benefit do you feel the LLM writing your comments is offering you and those reading your comments?
Why are you defensive? If you felt it was actually helping, you should be able to articulate how.
Nobody is writing sentences with autocomplete, much less entire comments. It corrects spelling, or at most homonyms or the like. Nobody is starting a sentence and pressing autocomplete to see where it goes.
And you should have to explain why you are using an LLM. Other people aren't, and they're doing just fine. You've said you think it helps in some way, but you can't or won't say why. That is odd to me. Do you not have confidence in your own ability to write?
Edit to add: As another commenter said, if someone wants an LLM's answer, they can just ask an LLM. If you think you're saving them that time and energy and asking the LLM and relaying the answer, then mark your comment as such (though IMO it's still useless for you to post that). You having an LLM write a comment and passing it off as a human response is disingenuous at best.
I find it more and more suspicious that you're unable to articulate why you're using an LLM to write your comments. And since you are pursuing this line of false equivalency between an LLM writing your entire comment, and something spellchecking what you've written, I don't suspect you're going to attempt a discussion. Maybe bring an LLM here so I can talk to it; it won't be so obtuse.
Rule or not, it's pretty lame, look at the size of your post compared to how much info it gives, had you copied a article from some basic linux news stite, it would have given mostly the same output, now think about what linking a page to an article about nixos as a response to op trying to start a conversation about it would look like, rude.
Using an LLM to autocorrect your own words is not the same as copy-pasting an LLM response.
I swear, LLMs are really giving people the You made this...I made this meme a rebirth.
May I invite you to consider the pitfalls of such an approach?
Yes, that would be reasonable imo
thanks for clarifying. i'm deleting your generated comment per rule 4 (spamming) as well as two other generated comments you posted elsewhere; if another admin wants to undelete any of these i would be surprised.
please do not post LLM-generated comments without clearly labeling them as such. imo this is common sense, and doesn't need its own rule, rule 4 is sufficient.
The admins did not remove the comment, a community mod did. Mods can impose further restrictions on their communities on top of instance wide rules (within reason of course), including banning LLMs. Lemmy.ml at least does not have a blanket ban on LLMs, but generally it's expected that, 1, you should not post LLMs excessively, we mainly want to host discussions by humans, 2, you should disclose it's from an LLM and which one it's from, and preferably add to what it says with your own comments or analysis. If it's a mix of LLM and your own writing, say so at the start of the comment, but if the community directly disallows LLMs then you shouldn't post it there at all.
Under the soon to be enacted EU AI laws such a bot would be limited-risk application (interaction with humans), the requirements for a text bot aren't particularly high but also non-negotiable from a best practice POV: Stating front and centre that it's an AI generated post. It's also best practice to fulfil criteria necessary for high-risk systems voluntarily, the more you can fulfil I bet the less hostile people are going to be.
The library of congress has an executive summary of the thing.
(EU sources alas are a bit iffy at the moment there's the commission version and the parliament amendments, haven't seen a consolidated version yet. When will politicians start using proper VCS)
Try not using an LLM to write what you..uh..write.
If your sources don't match the claims no you're not doing "the job" necessary to classify things as LLM-assisted instead of LLM-generated.
You suck