LLMs are only as good or bad as they are created - or their function / parameters? Google got real sad mid 00s - it's all about the money now isn't it.
Topic recently [1] re Google A.I. BSing.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43748171 ('Epistemological Slop: Lies, Damned Lies, and Google' - <newcartographies.com>)
I'm not sure if you first thought it up or just repeated the term - as I see simonw meaning-slop link was posted as a separate post at HN 2 days ago.
However it's certainly bad when some piss poor LLM starts flogging some nonce as a meaning. For example when using less well documented idioms or terminology - google sadly isn't that great any more at finding stuff, so ... not good if it just makes stuff up instead. New creative stuff, sometimes people can get the gist of it but all the same no one wants the likes of a search assistant vomiting all over it.
I see your point - when LLMs just make stuff if to be helpful.
That idea only exists to create fake two-dimensional anti-capilist rethoric, which is a rethoric easier to put down than the fact that privacy does not exist anymore.
So, I am supposed to do this. To "correct you" and look very lunatic.
It serves, however, a very specific goal. First, it cannot be copied en masse. If this behavior is copied (even as a meme), it implies doom to the more easier to defeat anti-capitalist rethoric and the birth of a true 3D anti-capitalist rethoric. It can only be mocked (smoking guy pointing to a conspiracy board), but that mockery is getting real serious real fast now.
Can I dive deeper into the mechanics of how this is gonna go?
We had so many chances, of doing good. You all had so many chances.