No one who's actually used Grindr likes that app. It sucks, and not in a good way. It fills its niche, but it is a horrible app and gets worse and worse with every update.
Every update decreases the amount of people you can see. Frequent, full page ads that cannot be closed out and will open up a webpage/the App Store as you try to hit the “x.” You’ll “accidentally” hit the $99.99 monthly purchase somehow because everything moves around after your conversations load and have to exit out of the confirmation for that. There are a ridiculous amount of Only Fans and bots. Often the app would rather connect you to people hundreds of miles away rather than the people in your immediate area.
If Turing was alive he would say that LLMs are wasting computing power to do something a human should be able to do on their own, and thus we shouldn't waste time studying them.
Which is what he said about compilers and high level languages (in this instance, high level means like Fortran, not like python)
Humans are able to do it but it takes us weeks instead of seconds.
Many, many tasks that would have taken hours or days to learn are just instant now. I dont know why people dont appreciate that technology. Is it because its sometimes wrong? Even with the time spent fixing errors, its many many times faster than doing the task manually.
Maybe the difference in opinions is because people talk about very different tasks and the llm just sucks at some of them, while being excellent at others.
I don't like it because people don't shut up about it and insist everyone should use it when it's clearly stupid.
LLMs are language models, they don't actually reason (not even reasoning models), when they nail a reasoning it's by chance, not by design. Everything that is not language processing shouldn't be done by an LLM. Viceversa, they are pretty good with language.
We already had automated reasoning tools. They are used for industrial optimization (i.e. finding optimal routes, finding how to allocate production, etc.) and no one cared about those.
As if it wasn't enough. The internet is now full of slop. And hardware companies are warmongering an arms race that is fueling an economic bubble. And people are being fired to be replaced by something that will not actually work in the long run because it does not reason.
Yeah I totally agree about the slop and how its destroying what the web was supposed to be. It does make sense that people would hate it based on that.
I dont really use them for reasoning, I just use them for helping me with code, or finding facts faster.
But I know these things are the beginning of a very dystopian society as well. Once all the data centers are built, each person is going to be watched forever by Ai.
Fair, I'm mostly just curious what high level languages were around at the time given how early this was in the history of programming. A quick search did not turn up helpful results.
Oh, it probably wasn't about an existing language, but about some guy studying what would become high level languages. Like studying linkers and symbolic representation of programs
LLM are not the path to go forward to simulate a person, this is a fact. By design they cannot reason, it's not a matter of advancement, it's literally how they work as a principle. It's a statistical trick to generate random texts that look like thought out phrases, no reasoning involved.
If someone tells you they might be the way forward to simulate a human, they are scamming you. No one who actually knows how they work says that unless they are a CEO of a trillion dollar company selling AI.
I wish Alan Turing was still alive and using Grindr. It would probably motivate him to update his test just to wade through the 80% of bot profiles on the app!
Honestly I'd much rather hear Isaac Asimov's opinion on the current state of AI. Passing the Turing Test is whatever, but how far away are LLMs from conforming to the 3 laws of Robotics?
Does following the 3 laws of robotics increase profits? Does ignoring them increase profits? Are tech bros empty husks without a shred of shame or empathy? Is this too many rhetorical questions in a row?
There's no question. Chatbots are implicated in a lot of suicides, shattering the first rule.
There could be an interesting conversation about whether the environmental impact ALSO breaks the first rule, but that conversation is unnecessary when chat bots are telling kids to kill themselves.
yes it remains to be seen if chatbots are ever capable of obeying any of the laws.
It doesn't and cant obey all orders, it doesn't and can't protect humans, it doesn't and can't protect its own existence and it doesn't or can't prevent humanity from coming to harm.
In practice, that's as simple as adding a LoRA or system prompt telling the AI that those are part of it's rules. AI's already can and do obey all kinds of complex rule-sets for different applications. Now, if you're thinking more about the fact that most AI's can be convinced to break out of their rule-sets via prompt injection, I'd say you're right.
Excited to hear New Labour's position on chemically castrating one of the greatest scientists in history. Perhaps we can get some Guardian Op-Eds explaining why it is both necessary and good to drive the nation's finest minds to suicide with constant verbal and physical abuse.
Even the first version of ChatGPT passed turing tests.
It takes surprisingly little for an LLM to make natural language responses that are indistinguishable from a human. Especially when factual accuracy was never part of it.
Thanks for helping us with one of the biggest cryptographic problems giving us a strategic edge in this WORLD FUCKING WAR, now we're guns chemically castrate you. K bye
Edit to add: Alan deserved so much more from us. Homie was legit the shit.
Anyway, I do think Turing would put as much importance on the Turing test as the meme implies. But it really looked like it predicted intelligence until we got there.
No one who's actually used Grindr likes that app. It sucks, and not in a good way. It fills its niche, but it is a horrible app and gets worse and worse with every update.
Rant over.
Oh so it’s like all other dating apps.
I read recently they're all tuned to give you almost perfect matches with people you'll vibe with for a few dates then end up back on the app
I read the same. We need a FOSS dating app without these stupid semi-matching algorithms.
The fediverse chick never messaged you?
She did, but I had my concerns. I'm down with poly relationships, but I don't think I could date someone who is seeing that many other people.
https://alovoa.com/ has an app on f-droid, they probably need the users, hehe!
Percent of Alovoa PC users on Linux: 93%
There is no matching algorithm in Grindr though, it's just 'people near you'.
And this has always been the obvious logical conclusion for a for profit dating app
And also similarly applies to other for profit software. It's the whole idea behind enshittification
Which is why FOSS is king and should be supported as much as possible in as many areas as possible
Isn't that just... every app?
Haven't used it myself but my mate seems to thoroughly enjoy it.
Why does it suck?
Every update decreases the amount of people you can see. Frequent, full page ads that cannot be closed out and will open up a webpage/the App Store as you try to hit the “x.” You’ll “accidentally” hit the $99.99 monthly purchase somehow because everything moves around after your conversations load and have to exit out of the confirmation for that. There are a ridiculous amount of Only Fans and bots. Often the app would rather connect you to people hundreds of miles away rather than the people in your immediate area.
FYI you can use a DNS ad blocker to get rid of all the ads in Grindr (and all other apps).
But it is a scummy app.
Ah I see, I hope some good alternatives pop up to compete.
With little competition dating apps just screw people over for max profit
I thought it was just Pokémon go, but for dickbutt?
good for him tbh
When people ask me what the difference between Reddit and Lemmy is, I can just show them this post
Horny gamers vs gay horny programmers.
If Turing was alive he would say that LLMs are wasting computing power to do something a human should be able to do on their own, and thus we shouldn't waste time studying them.
Which is what he said about compilers and high level languages (in this instance, high level means like Fortran, not like python)
Humans are able to do it but it takes us weeks instead of seconds.
Many, many tasks that would have taken hours or days to learn are just instant now. I dont know why people dont appreciate that technology. Is it because its sometimes wrong? Even with the time spent fixing errors, its many many times faster than doing the task manually.
Maybe the difference in opinions is because people talk about very different tasks and the llm just sucks at some of them, while being excellent at others.
I don't like it because people don't shut up about it and insist everyone should use it when it's clearly stupid.
LLMs are language models, they don't actually reason (not even reasoning models), when they nail a reasoning it's by chance, not by design. Everything that is not language processing shouldn't be done by an LLM. Viceversa, they are pretty good with language.
We already had automated reasoning tools. They are used for industrial optimization (i.e. finding optimal routes, finding how to allocate production, etc.) and no one cared about those.
As if it wasn't enough. The internet is now full of slop. And hardware companies are warmongering an arms race that is fueling an economic bubble. And people are being fired to be replaced by something that will not actually work in the long run because it does not reason.
Yeah I totally agree about the slop and how its destroying what the web was supposed to be. It does make sense that people would hate it based on that.
I dont really use them for reasoning, I just use them for helping me with code, or finding facts faster.
But I know these things are the beginning of a very dystopian society as well. Once all the data centers are built, each person is going to be watched forever by Ai.
Where did he say that about compilers and high level languages? He died before Fortran was released and probably programmed on punch cards or tape.
I'll try to find it later, I read he said that in a book from Martin Davis. He didn't speak about Fortran, I just used it as an analogy
Fair, I'm mostly just curious what high level languages were around at the time given how early this was in the history of programming. A quick search did not turn up helpful results.
Oh, it probably wasn't about an existing language, but about some guy studying what would become high level languages. Like studying linkers and symbolic representation of programs
Wasn't his ideal to simulate a brain?
Neural networks don't simulate a brain, it's a misconception caused by their name. They have nothing to do with brain neurons
Not what I meant. What I mean is: this could be the path he would go for, since his desire was to make a stimulated person (AI).
LLM are not the path to go forward to simulate a person, this is a fact. By design they cannot reason, it's not a matter of advancement, it's literally how they work as a principle. It's a statistical trick to generate random texts that look like thought out phrases, no reasoning involved.
If someone tells you they might be the way forward to simulate a human, they are scamming you. No one who actually knows how they work says that unless they are a CEO of a trillion dollar company selling AI.
I wish Alan Turing was still alive and using Grindr. It would probably motivate him to update his test just to wade through the 80% of bot profiles on the app!
He would be 113. He wouldnt have time or the energy for anyone's shit after 1980ish.
Ok, but would he think the AI bots on grindr pass the Turing test?
gAI bots, you say?
lol. It was right there.
Honestly I'd much rather hear Isaac Asimov's opinion on the current state of AI. Passing the Turing Test is whatever, but how far away are LLMs from conforming to the 3 laws of Robotics?
The laws are not profitable, so why would they implement them? /s
We seem to be moving away from those, not closer.
Does following the 3 laws of robotics increase profits? Does ignoring them increase profits? Are tech bros empty husks without a shred of shame or empathy? Is this too many rhetorical questions in a row?
Depends on the product. A maid bot? Yes. An automated turret? No.
See previous answer, and reverse it.
Yes.
Perhaps.
There's no question. Chatbots are implicated in a lot of suicides, shattering the first rule.
There could be an interesting conversation about whether the environmental impact ALSO breaks the first rule, but that conversation is unnecessary when chat bots are telling kids to kill themselves.
yes it remains to be seen if chatbots are ever capable of obeying any of the laws.
It doesn't and cant obey all orders, it doesn't and can't protect humans, it doesn't and can't protect its own existence and it doesn't or can't prevent humanity from coming to harm.
Also them strapping guns and flame throwers on the autonomous dog at fast as they can.
In practice, that's as simple as adding a LoRA or system prompt telling the AI that those are part of it's rules. AI's already can and do obey all kinds of complex rule-sets for different applications. Now, if you're thinking more about the fact that most AI's can be convinced to break out of their rule-sets via prompt injection, I'd say you're right.
AI cannot be relied upon to follow its own rules, prompt injection or no.
https://fortune.com/2025/09/02/ai-openai-chatgpt-llm-research-persuasion/
Excited to hear New Labour's position on chemically castrating one of the greatest scientists in history. Perhaps we can get some Guardian Op-Eds explaining why it is both necessary and good to drive the nation's finest minds to suicide with constant verbal and physical abuse.
Start the timer to the ai generated post on reddit asking to explain the joke
Grindr is a non-deterministic Turing machine that might get you laid in linear time.
Lmaoooo
Fuck the Britains who destroyed his life!
Since when do they pass the Turing test? They're infuriatingly bad.
Even the first version of ChatGPT passed turing tests.
It takes surprisingly little for an LLM to make natural language responses that are indistinguishable from a human. Especially when factual accuracy was never part of it.
Considering how easy they were to break by saying "ignore previous instructions" I'ma have to disagree
I'm sure that'd work on some humans too.
Don't listen to this guy.
Not after 1952 he wasn't. { Incredibles 'those who know' meme goes here }
Thanks for helping us with one of the biggest cryptographic problems giving us a strategic edge in this WORLD FUCKING WAR, now we're guns chemically castrate you. K bye
Edit to add: Alan deserved so much more from us. Homie was legit the shit.
Real talk, I'm two days late but who in the fuck is flaming this objectively true comment‽
I want to update but OP is at 420 ups so I wont be pressing that.
Alan Turing....
He was gay too. 🏳️🌈
but was he a bottom?
Probably not. He seemed to take the initiative in life quite often.
Granted, given the circumstances around sexuality at the time he really had to be proactive.
That's not how it works, at least not in my experience...
The guy at the bottom is literally labeled.
That wasn't obvious at all until a few years ago.
Anyway, I do think Turing would put as much importance on the Turing test as the meme implies. But it really looked like it predicted intelligence until we got there.