Is It Just Me?
-
I feel like I would have been able to do that easily 10 years ago, because search engines worked, and the 'web wasn't full of garbage. I reckon I'd have near zero chance now.
I actually ended up switching to Kagi for this exact reason. Google is basically AI at the start usually spouting nonsense then sponsor posts and then a bunch of SEO optimized BS.
Thankfully paying for search circumvents the ads and it hasn’t been AI by default (it has it but it’s off) and the results have been generally closer to 2010s Google.
-
I can't take anyone seriously that says it's "trained on stolen images."
Stolen, you say? Well, I guess we're going to have to force those AI companies to put those images back! Otherwise, nobody will be able to see them!
...because that's what "stolen" means. And no, I'm not being pendantic. It's a really fucking important distinction.
The correct term is, "copied" but that doesn't sound quite as severe. Also, if we want to get really specific, the images are presently on the Internet. Right now. Because that's what ImageNET (and similar) is: A database of URLs that point to images that people are offering up for free to anyone that wants on the Internet.
Did you ever upload an image anywhere publicly, for anyone to see? Chances are someone could've annotated it and included it in some AI training database. If it's on the Internet, it will be copied and used without your consent or knowledge. That's the lesson we learned back in the 90s and if you think that's not OK then go try to get hired by the MPAA/RIAA and you can try to bring the world back to the time where you had to pay $10 for a ringtone and pay again if you got a new phone (because—to the big media companies—copying is stealing!).
Now that's clear, let's talk about the ethics of training an AI on such data: There's none. It's an N/A situation! Why? Because until the AI models are actually used for any given purpose they're just data on a computer somewhere.
What about legally? Judges have already ruled in multiple countries that training AI in this way is considered fair use. There's no copyright violation going on... Because copyright only covers distribution of copyrighted works, not what you actually do with them (internally; like training an AI model).
So let's talk about the real problems with AI generators so people can take you seriously:
- Humans using AI models to generate fake nudes of people without their consent.
- Humans using AI models to copy works that are still under copyright.
- Humans using AI models to generate shit-quality stuff for the most minimal effort possible, saying it's good enough, then not hiring an artist to do the same thing.
The first one seems impossible to solve (to me). If someone generates a fake nude and never distributes it... Do we really care? It's like a tree falling in the forest with no one around. If they (or someone else) distribute it though, that's a form of abuse. The act of generating the image was a decision made by a human—not AI. The AI model is just doing what it was told to do.
The second is—again—something a human has to willingly do. If you try hard enough, you can make an AI image model get pretty close to a copyrighted image... But it's not something that is likely to occur by accident. Meaning, the human writing the prompt is the one actively seeking to violate someone's copyright. Then again, it's not really a copyright violation unless they distribute the image.
The third one seems likely to solve itself over time as more and more idiots are exposed for making very poor decisions to just "throw it at the AI" then publish that thing without checking/fixing it. Like Coca Cola's idiotic mistake last Christmas.
Goddamn, I'm stoked I'm not you.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Meanwhile, we have people making the web worse by not linking to source & giving us images of text instead of proper, accessible, searchable, failure tolerant text.
-
At least knowingly. It seems some customer service stuff feeds it direct to AI before any human gets involved.
I once asked a "customer service rep" to write a python script. It did.
-
The only thing people around me seem to use ai for is essentially code completion, test case development and email summaries. I don't know a single person who uses Snapchat. It's like the world is diverse and tools have uses.
"I hate tunnel boring machines, none of my buddies has an use for a tunnel boring machine, and they are expensive and consume a ton of energy"
I can see that you’re trying to mirror my comment, I just fail to see the point you’re trying to make. Cool, you know people who have a somewhat legitimate use for the unprofitable, unreliable technology that’s built on rampant theft and consumes obscene amounts of power and water. And?
-
It's important to remember that there's a lot of money being put into A.I. and therefore a lot of propaganda about it.
This happened with a lot of shitty new tech, and A.I. is one of the biggest examples of this I've known about.
All I can write is that, if you know what kind of tech you want and it's satisfactory, just stick to that. That's what I do.
Don't let ads get to you.First post on a lemmy server, by the way. Hello!
It's like Valorant, but much bigger and even worse.
-
It did help me make a basic script and add it to task scheduler so it runs and fixes my broken WiFi card so I don't have to manually do it. (or better said, helped me avoid asking arrogant people that feel smug when I tell them I haven't opened a command prompt in ten years)
did you not read the damn post?
-
The worst is in the workplace. When people routinely tell me they looked something up with AI, I now have to assume that I can't trust what they say anylonger because there is a high chance they are just repeating some AI halucination. It is really a sad state of affairs.
I've started seeing large AI generated pull requests in my coding job. Of course I have to review them, and the "author" doesn't even warn me it's from an LLM. It's just allowing bad coders to write bad code faster.
-
I must be one of the few reaming people that have never, and will never- type a sentence into an AI prompt.
I despise that garbage.
I haven't used it willingly ever. Especially after the one time copilot told me an acre is 4.5 football fields in area. I didn't ask it, the response was just presented at the top of my results. I'm a fucking farmer for God sake. I know that's very very wrong without thinking. I just wanted the square footage and was too lazy to use my calculator. Never again.
That being said, I do on occasion solicit my friend who has a subscription, just to request and have him send me a very specific image request and have him text it to me, so I can repost it.
Anything for the memes. Literally anything.
-
Do you also check if they listen to Joe Rogan? Fox news? Nobody can be trusted. AI isn't the problem, it's that it was trained on human data -- of which people are an unreliable source of information.
To take an older example there are smaller image recognition models that were trained on correct data to differentiate between dogs and blueberry muffin but obviously still made mistakes on the test data set.
AI does not become perfect if its data is.
Humans do make mistakes, make stuff up, and spread false information. However they generally make considerably less stuff up than AI currently does (unless told to).
-
I haven't used it willingly ever. Especially after the one time copilot told me an acre is 4.5 football fields in area. I didn't ask it, the response was just presented at the top of my results. I'm a fucking farmer for God sake. I know that's very very wrong without thinking. I just wanted the square footage and was too lazy to use my calculator. Never again.
That being said, I do on occasion solicit my friend who has a subscription, just to request and have him send me a very specific image request and have him text it to me, so I can repost it.
Anything for the memes. Literally anything.
wrote last edited by [email protected]TIL one football field is roughly the size of an acre. (Roughly.)
-
I think they’re saying that the kind of people who take LLM generated content as fact are the kind of people who don’t know how to look up information in the first place. Blaming the LLM for it is like blaming a search engine for showing bad results.
Of course LLMs make stuff up, they are machines that make stuff up.
Sort of an aside, but doctors, lawyers, judges and researchers make shit up all the time. A professional designation doesn't make someone infallible or even smart. People should question everything they read, regardless of the source.
Blaming the LLM for it is like blaming a search engine for showing bad results.
Except we give it the glorifying title "AI". It's supposed to be far better than a search engine, otherwise why not stick with a search engine (that uses a tiny fraction of the power)?
-
Blaming the LLM for it is like blaming a search engine for showing bad results.
Except we give it the glorifying title "AI". It's supposed to be far better than a search engine, otherwise why not stick with a search engine (that uses a tiny fraction of the power)?
I don't know what point you're arguing. I didn't call it AI and even if I did, I don't know any definition of AI that includes infallibility. I didn't claim it's better than a search engine, either. Even if I did, "Better" does not equal "Always correct."
-
Not just you. Ai is making people dumber. I am frequently correcting the mistakes of my colleagues that use.
My attitude to all of this is I've been told by management to use it so I will. If it makes mistakes it's not my fault and now I'm free to watch old Stargate episodes. We're not doing rocket surgery or anything so who cares.
At some point they'll realise that the AI is not producing decent output and then they'll shut up about it. Much easier they come to that realisation themselves than me argue with them about it.
-
TIL one football field is roughly the size of an acre. (Roughly.)
wrote last edited by [email protected]I haven't really played football in years so they must have changed the rules. Because that is one big ball.
-
My attitude to all of this is I've been told by management to use it so I will. If it makes mistakes it's not my fault and now I'm free to watch old Stargate episodes. We're not doing rocket surgery or anything so who cares.
At some point they'll realise that the AI is not producing decent output and then they'll shut up about it. Much easier they come to that realisation themselves than me argue with them about it.
Luckily no one is pushing me to use Ai in any form at this time.
For folks in your position, I fear that they will first go through a round of layoffs to get rid of the people who are clearly using it "wrong" because Top Management can't have made a mistake before they pivot and drop it.
-
It's important to remember that there's a lot of money being put into A.I. and therefore a lot of propaganda about it.
This happened with a lot of shitty new tech, and A.I. is one of the biggest examples of this I've known about.
All I can write is that, if you know what kind of tech you want and it's satisfactory, just stick to that. That's what I do.
Don't let ads get to you.First post on a lemmy server, by the way. Hello!
Hello and welcome!)
Also, thank you for good advice! -
This post did not contain any content.
I feel this
-
Probably right, but to be fair it’s “been” quantum computing since the 90’s.
True, but the grifter crowd has the internet as a medium and is larger and more empowered than ever
-
I can see that you’re trying to mirror my comment, I just fail to see the point you’re trying to make. Cool, you know people who have a somewhat legitimate use for the unprofitable, unreliable technology that’s built on rampant theft and consumes obscene amounts of power and water. And?
We already have the GPUs, they use a few hundred watts sporadically, definitely less than gaming. They use no water, they are air cooled and we drink more coffee than water ourselves. Do you just copy paste blindly arguments form the internet or do you ever stop and think from time to time?
