Is It Just Me?
-
Radio destroyed a lot of jobs for musicians. Before radio, there was only live music. With radio, a single professional orchestra or big band could supply the music for everyone with a receiver. Recordings came later and destroyed more jobs. Before "talkies", cinemas had live music. Musicians did protest against such new technologies.
People don’t just hate AI because it’s new, they hate it because it will condemn millions of people to poverty while making a handful of rich people even more rich.
Then why aren't people talking about unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, and such things?
You’re right, every new technology displaces some jobs, but AI is on a vastly larger scale (as was industrial production technology).
As to your last question, it’s because the people controlling the narrative don’t want to pay for unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, or anything else that doesn’t immediately make them more money.
-
My pet peeve: "here's what ChatGPT said..."
No.
Stop.
If I'd wanted to know what the Large Lying Machine said, I would've asked it.
It's like offering unsolicited advice, but it's not even your own advice
-
Point made with an image of minimal text? from lemmynsfw?
Did you notice the alt text?
Here's the markdownWhen that image breaks, the alt text & a broken image icon renders in its place, so readers will still understand the message.
People using accessibility technology (like screenreaders) can now understand the image.
Search engines can find the image by the alt text.I think griping over inaccessible text & lack of link to real text is more compelling, because it's a direct choice of the author: it directly impacts the user, the complaint goes directly to the author impacting the user, the author has direct control over it & can choose to fix it at any time.
There's a good chance of an immediate remedy.Griping over AI, however, adds little that isn't posted frequently around here & is a bit like yelling at clouds: we aren't about to stop that technology by yelling about it on here.
I'm sure it feels good, though.
It could feel better with a link & proper text.Did you notice the alt text?
Yeah, and I noticed it didn't describe the image at all - unless one had already seen the image and knew what it was. So for visually impaired users (i.e. one of the main groups who would benefit from alt text) it is insufficient at best.
Griping over AI, however, isn't adding anything that isn't posted frequently around here
Specific to the OP the issue is those of us who know gen-AI is an enormous piece of shit with only downsides for things we care about like culture and learning, we might feel like we're going a little crazy in a culture that only seems to be able to share love for it in public places like work. Even public criticism of it has been limited to economic and ecological harms. I haven't seen that particular angle before very much, and as someone else posted here I felt recognized by it.
-
being anti-AI is making me feel like I'm going insane. "You asked for thoughts about your character’s backstory and I put it into ChatGPT for ideas." Studies have proven it’s making people dumber. "I asked AI to generate this meal plan." It’s causing water shortages where its data centers are built. "I’ll generate some pictures for the DnD campaign." It’s spreading misinformation. "Meta, generate an image of this guy doing something stupid." It’s trained off stolen images, writing, video, audio. "I was talking with my Snapchat AI." There’s no way to verify what it’s doing with the information it collects. "YouTube is implementing AI-based age verification." My work has an entire graphics media department and has still put AI-generated motivational posters up everywhere. AI playlists. AI facial verification. Google AI. Microsoft AI. Meta AI. Snapchat AI.
Everyone treats it as a novelty. Everyone treats it as a mandatory part of life. Am I the only one who sees it? Am I paranoid? Am I going insane? Jesus fucking Christ.
If I have to hear one more "Well at least—", "But it does—", "But you can—" I’m about to lose it.
I shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to avoid the evil machine. Have you no principles? No goddamn spine? Am I the weird one here?
Still shoddy.
Got them —s, tho
-
being anti-plastic is making me feel like i'm going insane. "you asked for a coffee to go and i grabbed a disposable cup." studies have proven its making people dumber. "i threw your leftovers in some cling film." its made from fossil fuels and leaves trash everywhere we look. "ill grab a bag at the register." it chokes rivers and beaches and then we act surprised. "ill print a cute label and call it recyclable." its spreading greenwashed nonsense. little arrows on stuff that still ends up in the landfill. "dont worry, it says compostable." only at some industrial facility youll never see. "i was unboxing a package" theres no way to verify where any of this ends up. burned, buried, or floating in the ocean. "the brand says advanced recycling." my work has an entire sustainability team and we still stock pallets of plastic water bottles and shrink wrapped everything. plastic cutlery. plastic wrap. bubble mailers. zip ties. everyone treats it as a novelty. every treats it as a mandatory part of life. am i the only one who sees it? am i paranoid? am i going insane? jesus fucking christ. if i have to hear one more "well at least" "but its convenient" "but you can" im about to lose it. i shouldnt have to jump through hoops to avoid the disposable default. have you no principles? no goddamn spine? am i the weird one here?
#ebb rambles #vent #i think #fuck plastics
im so goddamn tiredIf plastic was released roughly two years ago you'd have a point.
If you're saying in 50 years we'll all be soaking in this bullshit called gen-AI and thinking it's normal, well - maybe, but that's going to be some bleak-ass shit.
Also you've got plastic in your gonads.
-
Why not write this with pen and paper?
It trains your brain even more than typing, it is impossible to be used to train any AI, it uses no electricity compared to the massive amounts a computer uses, and I don't have to read your dumb takes.
Seriously, I know corporate bullshit are using AI to do dumb things. But it is a fascinating technology that can do a lot of neat things if applied correctly.
Stop claiming like AI shit in your shoes and fucked your grandma. It isn't going to burst and go away.
But it is a fascinating technology that can do a lot of neat things if applied correctly.
Great so it should disappear entirely from every aspect of technology where it is not applied correctly. As the rest of the world has more or less worked since the dawn of history. And yet somehow it's in everyone's face every goddamned day and we Do. Not. Want. It.
Having alpha-level product thrust into each and every process and being told "that's the way it is" is utter insanity. Not to mention the entire concept is flawed as a business tool. FUCK THIS.
-
The reason AI is wrong so often is because it's not programmed to give you the right answer. It's programmed to give you the most pervasive one.
LLMs are being fed by Reddit and other forums that are ostensibly about humans giving other humans answers to questions.
But have you been on those forums? It's a dozen different answers for every question. The reality is that we average humans don't know shit and we're just basing our answers on our own experiences. We aren't experts. We're not necessarily dumb, but unless we've studied, our knowledge is entirely anecdotal, and we all go into forums to help others with a similar problem by sharing our answer to it.
So the LLM takes all of that data and in essence thinks that the most popular, most mentioned, most upvoted answer to any given question must be the de facto correct one. It literally has no other way to judge; it's not smart enough to cross reference itself or look up sources.
It literally has no other way to judge
It literally does NOT judge. It cannot reason. It does not know what "words" are. It is an enormous rainbow table of sentence probability that does nothing useful except fool people and provide cover for capitalists to extract more profit.
But apparently, according to some on here, "that's the way it is, get used to it." FUCK no.
-
Everytime someone talks up AI, I point out that you need to be a subject matter expert in the topic to trust it because it frequently produces really, really convincing summaries that are complete and utter bullshit.
And people agree with me implicitly and tell me they've seen the same. But then don't hesitate to turn to AI on subjects they aren't experts in for "quick answers". These are not stupid people either. I just don't understand.
Hence the feeling of creeping insanity. Yeah.
-
you asked for thoughts about your character backstory and i put it into chat gpt for ideas
If I want ideas from ChatGPT, I could just ask it myself. Usually, if I'm reaching out to ask people's opinions, I want, you know, their opinions. I don't even care if I hear nothing back from them for ages, I just want their input.
AI-generated content is like farts. Everyone likes the smell of their own and hates the smell of everyone else’s.
-
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).
wrote last edited by [email protected]AI does not become perfect if its data is.
It does become more precise the larger the model is though. At least, that was the low-hanging fruit during this boom. I highly doubt you'd get a modern model to fail on a test such as this today.
Just as an example, nobody is typing "Blueberry Muffin" into a stable diffusor and getting a photo of a dog.
-
Because the alternative for me is googling the question with "reddit" added at the end half of the time. I still do that alot. For more complicated or serious problems/questions, I've set it to only use search function and navigate scientific sites like ncbi and pubmed while utilizing deep think. It then gives me the sources, I randomly tend to cross-check the relevant information, but so far I personally haven't noticed any errors. You gotta realize how much time this saves.
When it comes to data privacy, I honestly don't see the potential dangers in the data I submit to OpenAI, but this is of course different to everyone else. I don't submit any personal info or talk about my life. It's a tool.
Simply by the questions you ask, the way you ask them, they are able to infer a lot of information. Just because you're not giving them the raw data about you doesn't mean they are not able to get at least some of it. They've gotten pretty good at that.
-
Simply by the questions you ask, the way you ask them, they are able to infer a lot of information. Just because you're not giving them the raw data about you doesn't mean they are not able to get at least some of it. They've gotten pretty good at that.
I really don't have any counter-arguments as you have a good point, I tend to turn a blind eye to that uncomfortable fact. It's worth it, I guess? Realistically, I'm having a hard time thinking of worst-case scenarious
-
If plastic was released roughly two years ago you'd have a point.
If you're saying in 50 years we'll all be soaking in this bullshit called gen-AI and thinking it's normal, well - maybe, but that's going to be some bleak-ass shit.
Also you've got plastic in your gonads.
Yeah it was a fun little whataboutism. I thought about doing smartphones instead. Writing that way hurts though. I had to double check for consistency.
-
Probably how people felt who were against the development of the printing press or internet.
No. No, it's such a weird take. No.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Right with you buddy, I’m so sick of half-thought-out analogies that implicitly equate two things that are not the same.
I remember the 90s, and I can warmly assure younger readers that no, there was nothing even approaching this kind of backlash from luddites. At worst there were a few people who quite correctly called out the dotcom bubble.
-
My boss had GPT make this informational poster thing for work. Its supposed to explain stuff to customers and is rampant with spelling errors and garbled text. I pointed it out to the boss and she said it was good enough for people to read. My eye twitches every time I see it.
Spelling errors? That’s… unusual. Part of what makes ChatGPT so specious is that its output is usually immaculate in terms of language correctness, which superficially conceals the fact that it’s completely bullshitting on the actual content.
-
You’re right, every new technology displaces some jobs, but AI is on a vastly larger scale (as was industrial production technology).
As to your last question, it’s because the people controlling the narrative don’t want to pay for unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, or anything else that doesn’t immediately make them more money.
You’re right, every new technology displaces some jobs, but AI is on a vastly larger scale (as was industrial production technology).
Famously, ye olde Boomer could just walk into a factory and get a job. None of these jobs exist anymore, mostly because of automation. Of course, none of those people wrote for a living, or had access to an audience of millions. I doubt that AI will displace jobs on a vastly larger scale but it is certainly communicated on a vastly larger scale.
If you think about all these jobs that might be displaced by AI, how many of them existed in the 1950ies? Many jobs, like web designer, are new. Either these new jobs reflect the displacement of old jobs, or you need a lot more people to do more jobs. Granted, global population has grown a lot, but that's not where these new jobs came from, right?
As to your last question, it’s because the people controlling the narrative don’t want to pay for unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, or anything else that doesn’t immediately make them more money.
Yes, the narrative is all about more money for (intellectual) property owners. That doesn't make a lot of sense if people are worried about losing their jobs.
-
The reason AI is wrong so often is because it's not programmed to give you the right answer. It's programmed to give you the most pervasive one.
LLMs are being fed by Reddit and other forums that are ostensibly about humans giving other humans answers to questions.
But have you been on those forums? It's a dozen different answers for every question. The reality is that we average humans don't know shit and we're just basing our answers on our own experiences. We aren't experts. We're not necessarily dumb, but unless we've studied, our knowledge is entirely anecdotal, and we all go into forums to help others with a similar problem by sharing our answer to it.
So the LLM takes all of that data and in essence thinks that the most popular, most mentioned, most upvoted answer to any given question must be the de facto correct one. It literally has no other way to judge; it's not smart enough to cross reference itself or look up sources.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It literally has no other way to judge; it’s not smart enough to cross reference itself or look up sources
I think that is it's biggest limitation.
Like AI basically crowd sourcing information isn't really the worst thing, crowd sourced knowledge tends to be fairly decent. People treating it as if it's an authoritative source like they looked it up in the encyclopedia or asked an expert is a big problem though.
Ideally it would be more selective about the 'crowds' it gathers data from. Like science questions should be sourced from scientists. Preferably experts in the field that the question is about.
Like Wikipedia (at least for now) is 'crowd- sourced', but individual pages are usually maintained by people who know a lot about the subject. That's why it's more accurate than a 'normal' encyclopedia. Though of course it's not fool proof or tamper proof by any definition.
If we taught AI how to be 'Media Literate' and gave it the ability to double check it's data with reliable sources- it would be a lot more useful.
most upvoted answer
This is the other problem. You basically have 4 types of redditors.
-
People who use the karma system correctly, that is to say they upvote things that contribute to the conversation. Even if you think it is 'wrong' or you disagree with it, if it's something that adds to the discussion, you are supposed to upvote it.
-
People who treat it as "I agree/ I disagree" buttons.
-
People who treat it as "I like this/ I hate this buttons.
-
Id say the majority of the people probably do some combination of the above.
So more than half the time people aren't upvoting things because they think they are correct. If LLM models are treating 'karma' as a "This is correct" metric- that's a big problem.
The other bad problem is people who really should know better- tech bros and CEO's going all in on AI when it's WAY to early to do that. As you point out, it's not even really intelligent yet- it just parrots 'common' knowledge.
-
-
Spelling errors? That’s… unusual. Part of what makes ChatGPT so specious is that its output is usually immaculate in terms of language correctness, which superficially conceals the fact that it’s completely bullshitting on the actual content.
The user above mentioned informational poster so I'm going to assume it was generated as an image. And those have spelling mistakes.
Can't even generate image and text separately smh. People are indeed getting dumber.
-
This post did not contain any content.
People are overworked, underpaid, and struggling to make rent in this economy while juggling 3 jobs or taking care of their kids, or both.
They are at the limits of their mental load, especially women who shoulder it disproportionately in many households. AI is used to drastically reduce that mental load. People suffering from burnout use it for unlicensed therapy. I'm not advocating for it, I'm pointing out why people use it.
Treating AI users like a moral failure and disregarding their circumstances does nothing to discourage the use of AI. All you are doing is enforcing their alienation of anti-AI sentiment.
First, understand the person behind it. Address the root cause, which is that AI companies are exploiting the vulnerabilities of people with or close to burnout by selling the dream of a lightened workload.
It's like eating factory farmed meat. If you have eaten it recently, you know what horrors go into making it. Yet, you are exhausted from a long day of work and you just need a bite of that chicken to take the edge off to remain sane after all these years. There is a system at work here, greater than just you and the chicken. It's the industry as a whole exploiting consumer habits. AI users are no different.
-
It literally has no other way to judge; it’s not smart enough to cross reference itself or look up sources
I think that is it's biggest limitation.
Like AI basically crowd sourcing information isn't really the worst thing, crowd sourced knowledge tends to be fairly decent. People treating it as if it's an authoritative source like they looked it up in the encyclopedia or asked an expert is a big problem though.
Ideally it would be more selective about the 'crowds' it gathers data from. Like science questions should be sourced from scientists. Preferably experts in the field that the question is about.
Like Wikipedia (at least for now) is 'crowd- sourced', but individual pages are usually maintained by people who know a lot about the subject. That's why it's more accurate than a 'normal' encyclopedia. Though of course it's not fool proof or tamper proof by any definition.
If we taught AI how to be 'Media Literate' and gave it the ability to double check it's data with reliable sources- it would be a lot more useful.
most upvoted answer
This is the other problem. You basically have 4 types of redditors.
-
People who use the karma system correctly, that is to say they upvote things that contribute to the conversation. Even if you think it is 'wrong' or you disagree with it, if it's something that adds to the discussion, you are supposed to upvote it.
-
People who treat it as "I agree/ I disagree" buttons.
-
People who treat it as "I like this/ I hate this buttons.
-
Id say the majority of the people probably do some combination of the above.
So more than half the time people aren't upvoting things because they think they are correct. If LLM models are treating 'karma' as a "This is correct" metric- that's a big problem.
The other bad problem is people who really should know better- tech bros and CEO's going all in on AI when it's WAY to early to do that. As you point out, it's not even really intelligent yet- it just parrots 'common' knowledge.
AI should never be used to create anything in Wikipedia. But theoretically, an open source LLM trained solely on wikipedia would actually be kind useful to ask quick questions to.
-
