MudMan

Well, there you go. We looped all the way back around to inventing dial-up modems, just thousands of times less efficient.

Nice.

For the record, this can all be avoided by having a website with online reservations your overengineered AI agent can use instead. Or even by understanding the disclosure that they’re talking to an AI and switching to making the reservation online at that point, if you’re fixated on annoying a human employee with a robocall for some reason. It’s one less point of failure and way more efficient and effective than this.

I don’t, in fact, have to take that into account. I’m not making excuses for people who like being dicks on the Internet. Choosing a scapegoat to lash out at makes this worse, not better.

OK, but that’s bad, right? We all agree that’s bad.

More importantly, that’s what Darrah is trying to say. And nobody wants to see themselves as the bad guy, so everybody is dancing around it.

And no, I didn’t mean you specifically, I don’t know who you are. I do include other people in this thread that have made their position explicit, though.

And that is both entirely unreasonably and the type of behavior Darrah is (legitimately) complaining about.

Nobody who works at Ubisoft is your enemy, and if you’re so mad about it that not buying the games isn’t enough and you feel like being a dick to the people losing their jobs online you’re the bad guy in this scenario.

This is demonstrably not true. Definitely people cheering for Ubi’s layoffs recently. Not about the execs, about the devs.

As the other guy says, literally two posts down the line.

Yeah, he agrees.

You don’t have to like a game, and you don’t have stay quiet if you have complaints, says Darrah. You’re entitled to be angry, and you’re entitled to express that anger. “If you are mad at that Ubisoft game, be mad at Ubisoft,” he says. “Express your anger to Ubisoft or the studio that made the game. But you cross a line when you start being cruel about it.”

Reading. It works.

“Intended” is a weird choice there. Certainly the people selling them are selling them as search engines, even though they aren’t one.

On DDG’s implementation, though, you’re just wrong. The search engine is still the search engine. They are using an LLM as a summary of the results. Which is also a bad implementation, because it will do a bad job at something you can do by just… looking down. But, crucially, the LLM is neither doing the searching nor generating the results themselves.

I keep having to repeat this, but the conversation does keep going on a loop: LLMs aren’t entirely useless and they’re not search engines. You shouldn’t ask it any questions you don’t already know the answer to (or have the tools to verify, at least).