• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Right but to detect close-enough spellings and word orders, using a curated index or catalogue of accepted examples, is one thing.

    To train layers of algorithms in layers of machines on massive datasets to come up with close enoughs would be that but many times over the costs.

    You would be a moron to use llms for spellchecking.

    To clarify to you, not all programs are equal. Its not all different methods to do the same thing at the same cost.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Ok but why do you think it’s okay to use a wrecking ball for a task that requires a chisel? You’re creating low quality high cost work just because it’s fast and easy.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Why do you think grammarly is a thing dude…?

          People ALREADY use an llm for spellcheck, and it’s acceptable, yet this crosses a line…? You say people won’t use one… yet it’s already been a thing for years, your ignorance is i ionic as shit here.

          It’s always funny what people will find acceptable, but also balk at when it’s fundamentally the exact same thing.

          Of these devs want to claim “no ai” and everything is human, than they can’t rely on spellcheck either. Both are automated tools no?

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Grammarly predates commercial generative AI, as I attempted to explain to you before. It’s over a decade old. You clearly don’t understand the core mechanisms of any of these things.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              You seem to be missing the point that’s been made here since your ignorance is “ai bad”.

              A tools a tool, any tool can be abused. So it’s a very hypocrital view to say these tools are acceptable, but make up arbitrary reasons why those ones aren’t. That’s what’s being done here, and why people are trying to shift the conversation focus to the “tool itself”.

              Since even photoshop, grammarly, or any other non-ai tool is labour a usable too.

              If we want humans doing stuff, why is a brushing tool acceptable? It’s not a human doing the work. So yeah the views here are extremely hypocritical.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 hours ago

                  Says the hypocrite that says one tool that replaces humans is okay, but not another.

                  Okay buddy, just because you can’t make a coherent argument or come up with a legitimate reason why one’s acceptable doesn’t make me slow. If anything just shows how flawed and fucked your reasoning is.

                  People have always used tools to replace humans. So this decry NOW over ai is what’s bullshit. They shouldn’t enable to use PS brush tools either. Same process, same outcome, the ai can actually be able to do more and remove labor. But now “that’s” not okay. This is what me and other users are pointing out.

                  But your “ai bad” bias, has made you ignorant to any actual discussions.

                  If you don’t want ai, than you don’t want grammarly, spellcheck, auto correct, PS or any other tool. If you do, you’re frankly a bloody Luddite hypocrite.

                  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    You’re not even arguing at this point, you’re just repeating false claims I already debunked as if saying things louder might make you more correct.