Lemmy be like
-
If we develop them into tools that help assist work.
Spoilers: We will not
I believe the AI business and the tech hype cycle is ultimately harming the field.
I think this is just an American way of doing business. And it's awful, but at the end of the day people will adopt technology if it makes them greater profit (or at least screws over the correct group of people).
But where the Americanized AI seems to suffer most is in their marketing fully eclipsing their R&D. People seem to have forgotten how DeepSeek spiked the football on OpenAI less than a year ago by making some marginal optimizations to their algorithm.
The field isn't suffering from the hype cycle nearly so much as it suffers from malinvestment. Huge efforts to make the platform marketable. Huge efforts to shoehorn clumsy chat bots into every nook and cranny of the OS interface. Vanishingly little effort to optimize material consumption or effectively process data or to segregate AI content from the human data it needs to improve.
-
Because when your employer catches on, they'll bring you back up to 40 anyway.
And probably because those 15 hours now produce shit quality.
My employer is pushing AI usage, if the work is done the work is done. This is the reality we're supposed to be living in with AI, just conforming to the current predatory system because "AI bad" actively harms more than it helps.
-
Whether intentional or not, this is gaslighting. "Here's the trendy reaction those wacky lemmings are currently upvoting!"
Getting to the core issue, of course we're sick of AI, and have a negative opinion of it! It's being forced into every product, whether it makes sense or not. It's literally taking developer jobs, then doing worse. It's burning fossil fuels and VC money and then hallucinating nonsense, but still it's being jammed down our throats when the vast majority of us see no use-case or benefit from it. But feel free to roll your eyes at those acknowledging the truth...
What is the gaslighting here? A trend, or the act of pointing out a trend, do not seem like gaslighting to me. At most it seems like bandwagon propaganda or the satire thereof.
For the second paragraph, I agree we (Lemmings) are all pretty against it and we can be echo-chambery about it. You know, like Linux!
But I would also DISagree that we (population of earth) are all against it.
-
The point is, most wouldn’t.
People currently want it despite it being stupid which is why corporations are in a frenzy to be the monopoly that provides it. People want all sorts of stupid things. A different system wouldn't change that.
Define people. Because obviously people don't here. The average person I talk to IRL on a daily basis don't know what it is, have never used it, and likely never will. And a system where the people currently pushing this wouldn't exist would certainly change things.
Your argument basically amounts to "nu uh".
-
Do you really need to have a list of why people are sick of LLM and Ai slop?
Ai is literally making people dumber:
https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/18/is_ai_changing_our_brains/
They are a massive privacy risk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyH7zoP-JOg&t=3015s
Are being used to push fascist ideologies into every aspect of the internet:
https://newsocialist.org.uk/transmissions/ai-the-new-aesthetics-of-fascism/
And they are a massive environmental disaster:
https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117
Stop being a corporate apologist and stop wreaking the environment with this shit technology.
Edit: thank you to every Ai apologist outing themselves in the comments. Thank you for making blocking you easy.
Gish gallop
-
You asked for one example, I gave you one.
It's not just voice, I can ask it complex questions and it can understand context and put on lights or close blinds based on that context.
I find it very useful with no real drawbacks
The fact that was the best you could come up with is far more damning than not even having one.
-
Spoilers: We will not
Generative inpainting/fill is enormously helpful in media production.
Implicit costs refer to the opportunity costs associated with a firm's resources, representing the income that could have been earned if those resources were employed in their next best alternative use.
-
When someone disagrees with me - echo chamber.
When someone agrees with me - logical discussion.
Then why are you guys avoiding a logical discussion around environmental impact instead of spouting misinformation?
The fact of the matter is eating a single steak or lb of ground beef will eclipse all most peoples AI usage. Obviously most can't escape driving, but for those of us in cities biking will far eclipse your environmental impact than not using AI.
Serving AI models aren't even as bad as watching Netflix, this counterculture to AI is largely misdirected anger that thrown towards unregulated capitalism. Unregulated data centers. Unregulated growth.
Training is bad but training is a small piece of the puzzle that happens infrequently, and again circles back to the unregulated problem.
-
Implicit costs refer to the opportunity costs associated with a firm's resources, representing the income that could have been earned if those resources were employed in their next best alternative use.
I don't see the relevance here. Inpainting saves artists from time-consuming and repetitive labor for (often) no additional cost. Many generative inpainting models will run locally, but they're also just included with an Adobe sub.
-
AI use = small dick energy.
Yeah, go cry about it. People use AI to help themselves while you’re just being technophobic, shouting ‘AI is bad’ without even saying which AI you mean. And you’re doing it on Lemmy, a tiny techno-bubble. Lmao.
-
I don't see the relevance here. Inpainting saves artists from time-consuming and repetitive labor for (often) no additional cost. Many generative inpainting models will run locally, but they're also just included with an Adobe sub.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don’t see the relevance here
Anthropic is losing $3 billion or more after revenue in 2025
OpenAI is on track to lose more than $10 billion.
xAI, makers of “Grok, the racist LLM,” losing it over $1 billion a month.
I don't know that generative infill justifies these losses.
-
Lol I didn't know that the anarchists over at lemmy.dbzer0.com are being corporate apologists. /sarcasm
wrote last edited by [email protected]Weird ... It looks like there's nothing stopping me from signing up for an account on dbzer0 even though I'm not actually an anarchist.
-
The fact that was the best you could come up with is far more damning than not even having one.
I'm keeping it simple, that's a solid good use case, and what millions of people use ChatGPT for.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I mean, it is objectively bad for life. Throwing away millions to billions of gallons of water all so you can get some dubious coding advice.
-
Commit to this. Let AI write all your responses from now on.
I never said I'm pro-AI?
-
Arent those different types of AI?
I dont think anyone hating AI is referring to the code that makes enemies move, or sort things into categories
LLMs aren't artificial intelligence in any way.
They're extremely complex and very smart prediction engines.
The term artificial intelligence has been co-opted in hijacked for marketing purposes a long time ago.
The kind of AI that in general people expect to see is a fully autonomous self-aware machine.
If anyone has used any llm for any extended period of time they will know immediately that they're not that smart even chatgpt arguably the smartest of them all is still highly incapable.
What we do have to come to terms with is that these llms do have an application they have function and they are useful and they can be used in a deleterious way just like any technology at all.
-
I don’t see the relevance here
Anthropic is losing $3 billion or more after revenue in 2025
OpenAI is on track to lose more than $10 billion.
xAI, makers of “Grok, the racist LLM,” losing it over $1 billion a month.
I don't know that generative infill justifies these losses.
The different uses of AI are not inexctricable. This is the point of the post. We should be able to talk about the good and the bad.
-
As in Genuine Leather?
It is leather, just 1mm of it.
-
The different uses of AI are not inexctricable. This is the point of the post. We should be able to talk about the good and the bad.
We should be able to talk about the good and the bad.
Again, I point you to "implicit costs". Something this trivial isn't good if it's this expensive.
-
Define people. Because obviously people don't here. The average person I talk to IRL on a daily basis don't know what it is, have never used it, and likely never will. And a system where the people currently pushing this wouldn't exist would certainly change things.
Your argument basically amounts to "nu uh".
The average person I talk to IRL on a daily basis don’t know what it is, have never used it, and likely never will.
ChatGPT.com is visited approximately 5.24 billion times each month. That makes it bigger than Twitter, Instagram, and even Wikipedia.
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/chatgpt-users
I don't use Twitter and don't know anyone that does but that doesn't mean it isn't popular.
Your argument basically amounts to “nu uh”.
ChatGPT has been the biggest Internet thing since Google. If it wasn't, we wouldn't even be talking about it here. I shouldn't have to quote statistics for something well known.
