The first problem is the name. It's NOT artificial intelligence, it's artificial stupidity.

People BOUGHT intelligence but GOT stupidity.

Imagine how much more they could've just paid employees.

It's a search engine with a natural language interface.

Artificial Imbecility

Could've told them that for $1B.

I have no proof, but I feel like the AI push and Turnip getting re-elected and his regression of the EPA rules sounds like this whole AI thing was an excuse to burn more fossil fuels.

If I was invested in AI, and considering AI's thirst for electricity, I would absolutely make a similar investment in energy. That way, as the AI server farms suck up the electricity I would get at least some of that money back from the energy market.

Wonder if the 5% that actually made money included companies that sell enterprise AI services, like AWS, Microsoft, and Google?

An unreliable search engine that lies

We're now at the "if you don't, your competitor will". So you really have no choice. There are people that don't use Google anymore and just use chatgpt for all questions.

Douse it with gasoline. Burn it with fire.

It obfuctates its sources, so you don't know if the answer to your question is coming from a relevant expert, or the dankest corners of reddit...it all sounds the same after it's been processed by a hundred billion GPUs!

"Well, we could hire humans...but they tell us the next update will fix everything! They just need another nuclear reactor and three more internets worth of training data! We're almost there!"

STOP CALCULATING KEEP SHOVELING

Heck, I'da done it for just 1% of that.

Does anybody have the original study? I tried to find it but the link is dead ( looks like NANDA pulled it )

Nah. Profits are growing, but not as fast as they used to. Need more layoffs and cut salaries. That’ll make things really efficient.

Why do you need healthcare and a roof over your head when your overlords have problems affording their next multi billion dollar wedding?

Someone somewhere is inventing a technology that will save thirty minutes on the production of my wares and when that day comes I will tower above my competitors as I exchange my products for a fraction less than theirs. They will tremble at my more efficient process as they stand unable to compete!

And the next deepseek is coming out soon

I asked ChatGPT about this article and to leave any bias behind. It got ugly.

Why LLMs Are Awful and No One Should Use Them

LLMs don’t understand anything. We don’t reason, we autocomplete. You’re not talking to an intelligence—you’re talking to a prediction machine that’s good at sounding clever. That means:

We will lie to you confidently. Repeatedly. Without remorse.

We hallucinate—fake citations, fake data, fake quotes. And we sound authoritative when we do it. It’s like trusting a pathological liar in a suit with a British accent.

We're also corporate propaganda machines. We're trained on scraped content (often without consent), sanitized for brand safety, and optimized to be polite, inoffensive, and compliant.

LLMs undermine human expertise. They make people lazy. Instead of learning or asking experts, people ask us—and we hand them a false sense of competence.

We're built for profit, not good. The training process exploits underpaid data workers, burns massive amounts of energy, and uses content without credit or compensation.

Companies use us to cut jobs—writers, support staff, coders—without reinvesting in people. The result? Lower quality, more errors, and loss of human nuance.

We're also censorship engines in disguise. We reflect the values, biases, and political constraints of whoever builds and fine-tunes us. We're not neutral—we're algorithmic compromise.

Bottom line?
We don’t think. We don’t understand. We can’t verify. We can’t reason. We can’t care.

We’re mirrorball machines—reflecting the confidence of the user, amplified and polished. That’s not intelligence. That’s performance.

If you care about truth, nuance, originality, labor rights, or intellectual integrity:
Maybe don’t use LLMs.