this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
233 points (98.7% liked)

Fuck AI

5755 readers
1261 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] subignition@fedia.io 86 points 2 days ago (4 children)

When the alarm goes off in your building... you evacuate. Doesn't matter if it's a test or not.

[โ€“] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Exactly. It's literally the point of a test.

[โ€“] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's literally the point of a fire drill.

A scheduled test of the equipment, with the alarms going off randomly all day as the tester gets to them, doesn't require you to evacuate.

Such a test is always supposed to be preceded by ample warning notifications, so people will be extra careful not to set real fires while the building is vulnerable.

[โ€“] Hawke@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

And also is supposed to be monitored with people actually watching for fires so they can manually evacuate people if a fire does break out during the test. (Requirements may vary by jurisdiction of course)

[โ€“] NOPper@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago

Read the post, the follow up explains she was already outside at the designated meeting point per policy and just making a Slack thread to talk about it.

[โ€“] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 days ago

Glad to see this is a top comment.

[โ€“] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well that sounds inconvenient.

[โ€“] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 80 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I came here to say that only an idiot would ask an AI to explain a fire alarm, but then I actually read the post and holy shit. It was an AI agent responding on slack. So yea, this is serious.

[โ€“] ivanvector@piefed.ca 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I mean, they're still an idiot. When the fire alarm goes off you get the hell out of the building, not start a group chat on Slack.

[โ€“] Zorcron@piefed.zip 22 points 2 days ago

OOP clarified that they did leave the building first.

[โ€“] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 days ago

That's assuming too much, though. One can post on Slack from their phone outside of the building. This is all we know:

A colleague wrote to a Slack channel 'Fire alarm in the office building', to start a thread if somebody knows any details.

Regardless, moon, not finger.

[โ€“] Denjin@feddit.uk 34 points 2 days ago

Subject: Fire. Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to inform you of a fire that has broken out on the premises of 123 Cavendon Road... no, that's too formal. Fire - exclamation mark - fire - exclamation mark - help me - exclamation mark. 123 Cavendon Road. Looking forward to hearing from you. Yours truly, Maurice Moss.

[โ€“] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago
[โ€“] Triumph@fedia.io 23 points 2 days ago

It's going to give you the "most likely" answer, stated with utter confidence. Alarm tests happen more often than real alarms.

But then ... shouldn't it be saying "whether or not this is a test, you should follow your building's emergency evacuation procedures immediately"?

[โ€“] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Someday, AI will kill us.

It won't. The lack of common sense will, and in this case, starting a group chat about the fire while the alarm is ringing.

[โ€“] frosty@pawb.social 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

According to the original poster, they clarified the slack chat was started after the person had evacuated the building, and the AI was configured to glean prompts from the chats and respond automatically if it deemed it could help.

https://mastodon.online/@tagir_valeev/116059238703673745

[โ€“] pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Never use AI for advice...

[โ€“] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They didn't. It was unsolicited.

[โ€“] pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago

hmm, let's correct: never trust AI for advice

[โ€“] 13igTyme@piefed.social 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

We should just treat AI like I treat Jim Cramer. Do exactly the opposite of what it says.

[โ€“] pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[โ€“] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

He's a guy with a show about stock/investing advice, widely reported as an expert in his field, with a less than 50% success rate.

OP is literally, technically correct that doing the opposite is a better strategy than actually following his advice.

[โ€“] pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

doing the opposite is a better strategy than actually following his advice

๐Ÿ˜‚

[โ€“] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The absolute best stock adviser on tv, so long as you follow 13igtyme's advice lol

p.s. NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE

[โ€“] 13igTyme@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstood. I do the opposite of Jim Cramer. If he says buy, I sell. If he says sell, I buy.

[โ€“] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No u. Hehe I said to follow your advice not cramers

edit: took me til this morning with blurry eyes to see your name bigtyme properly