• El Barto
    link
    fedilink
    27 days ago

    Which ones? The ones that allow raping of children by their leaders?

    Or the ones that promote violence in their holy books, like killings and torturing to death? Oh, but the profanity! Not the profanity.

    • @[email protected]M
      link
      fedilink
      -27 days ago

      I am aware that Lemmy has an anti-religious bent but the fact is that religious people are part of this world, some even in places of power. Shouldn’t they also be informed about how LLMs are prone to bullshit as well? Though if they are OK with the word “bullshit” then it’s all fine by me at the end of the day

      • El Barto
        link
        fedilink
        17 days ago

        I didn’t downvote you, by the way.

        But I’m curious: are you still talking about LLMs discussions that include profanity?

        Or are you talking about something different, the fact that LLMs can spew bullshit, and that religious congregators should be informed about this?

          • El Barto
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            I don’t follow how you went from being concerned about using profanity in research papers because of audiences such as religious communities, to being concerned about LLMs spewing inaccurate things.

            Has your original question always been about the latter?

            I love the term too but I wonder how it’ll be used in situations where profanity is discouraged

            • @[email protected]M
              link
              fedilink
              26 days ago

              Yes, I was curious about about if experts want to convey the concept of LLM bullshit to certain audiences such as children’s settings (which has been solved now) or religious clergy, they’ll use the term “bullshit” or not. I apologize if I have miscommunicated that intention in my initial comment, and I always look forward to how to communicate better