this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
150 points (95.2% liked)
Linux
47307 readers
566 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.
Yes, you can ask for them.
Yes, and it’s actually a problem. They sometime generate realistic looking, fake citations.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] an admin is telling me not to use LLMs. Is this the official stance of this instance? If so, please let me know so I can find another instance and add it to the rules, if not please choose admins that actually enforce the instance rules without making them up.
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 use an LLM to edit everything I write. Does this mean I have to label everything as LLM-generated? I am the one doing the job, but in the end, I'm just copy-pasting the output from the LLM.
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.
I think you should.
Why don't you label your name in every answer, so we can check if you are hallucinating or making things up?
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?
I don't need to explain myself. I wouldn't do it if I didn't think it helped.
Why are you defensive? If you felt it was actually helping, you should be able to articulate how.
I feel attacked, obviously, because I shouldn't have to explain my reasons for using an LLM, just like other people don't have to explain themselves when they use an autocomplete tool on their phone.
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?
And you ask why I'm defensive. You keep pushing, even though I've already told you that I won't explain myself. If tomorrow, every spellchecker used LLMs to complete phrases instead of words, would you ask everyone to explain why they're using them?
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.
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); if another admin wants to undelete it i would be surprised.
please do not post LLM-authored 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.
So basically promote software for free? No thanks, bye. I won't attribute everything I write to an LLM.
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.
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)
I use an LLM to edit everything I write. Does this mean I have to label everything as LLM-generated? I am the one doing the job, but in the end, I'm just copy-pasting the output from the LLM.
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.
Try not using an LLM to write what you..uh..write.
You suck