Lemmy be like
-
then you have little understanding of how genai works… the social impact of genai is horrific, but to argue the tool is wholly bad conveys a complete or purposeful misunderstanding of context
I'm not an expert in AI systems, but here is my current thinkging:
Insofar as 'GenAI' is defined as
AI systems that can generate new content, including text, images, audio, and video, in response to prompts or inputs
I think this is genuinely bad tech. In my analysis, there are no good use cases for automating this kind of creative activity in the way that the current technology works. I do not mean that all machine assisted generation of content is bad, but just the current tech we are calling GenAI, which is of the nature of "stochastic parrots".
I do not think every application of ML is trash. E.g., AI systems like AlphaFold are clearly valuable and important, and in general the application of deep learning to solve particular problems in limited domains is valuable
Also, if we first have a genuinely sapient AI, then it's creation would be of a different kind, and I think it would not be inherently degenerative. But that is not the technology under discussion. Applications of symbolic AI to assist in exploring problem spaces, or ML to solve classification problems also seems genuinely useful.
But, indeed, all the current tech that falls under GenAI is genuinely bad, IMO.
-
Language is descriptive not prescriptive.
If people use the term "AI" to refer to LLMs, then it's correct by definition.
If people use [slur] to refer to [demographic] that does not make it correct by definition.
-
You're getting downvoted for speaking the truth to an echo chamber my guy.
But he isn't speaking the truth. AI itself is a massive strain on the environment, without any true benefit. You are being fed hype and lies by con men. Data centers being built to supply AIs are using water and electricity at alarming rates, taking away the resources from actual people living nearby, and raising the cost of those utilities at the same time.
https://www.realtor.com/advice/finance/ai-data-centers-homeowner-electric-bills-link/
-
But he isn't speaking the truth. AI itself is a massive strain on the environment, without any true benefit. You are being fed hype and lies by con men. Data centers being built to supply AIs are using water and electricity at alarming rates, taking away the resources from actual people living nearby, and raising the cost of those utilities at the same time.
https://www.realtor.com/advice/finance/ai-data-centers-homeowner-electric-bills-link/
Do you really think those data centers wouldn't have been built if AI didn't exist? Do you really think those municipalities would have turned down the same amount of money if it was for something else but equally destructive?
What I'm hearing is you're sick of municipal governance being in bed with big business. That you're sick of big business being allowed to skirt environmental regulations.
But sure. Keep screaming at AI. I'm sure the inanimate machine will feel really bad about it.
-
Define "intelligence"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
Take your pick from anything that isn't recent and by computer scientists or mathematicians, to call stuff intelligent that clearly isn't. According to some modern marketing takes I developed AI 20 years ago (optimizing search problems for agentic systems); it's just that my peers and I weren't stupid enough to call the results intelligent.
-
But he isn't speaking the truth. AI itself is a massive strain on the environment, without any true benefit. You are being fed hype and lies by con men. Data centers being built to supply AIs are using water and electricity at alarming rates, taking away the resources from actual people living nearby, and raising the cost of those utilities at the same time.
https://www.realtor.com/advice/finance/ai-data-centers-homeowner-electric-bills-link/
AI uses 1/1000 the power of a microwave.
Are you really sure you aren't the one being fed lies by con men?
-
While you aren't wrong about human nature. I'd say you're wrong about systems. How would the same thing happen under an anarchist system? Or under an actual communist (not Marxist-Leninist) system? Which account for human nature and focus to use it against itself.
It will happen regardless because we are not machines, we don't follow theory, laws, instructions or whatever a system tells us to perfectly and without little changes here and there.
-
Its true. We can have a nuanced view. Im just so fucking sick of the paid off media hyping this shit, and normies thinking its the best thing ever when they know NOTHING about it. And the absolute blind trust and corpo worship make me physically ill.
Nuance is the thing.
Thinking AI is the devil, will kill your grandma and shit in your shoes is equally as dumb as thinking AI is the solution to any problem, will take over the world and become our overlord.
The truth is, like always, somewhere in between.
-
Those are not valuable use cases. “Devouring text” and generating images is not something that benefits from automation. Nor is summarization of text. These do not add value to human life and they don’t improve productivity. They are a complete red herring.
Who talked about image generation? That one is pretty much useless, for anything that needs to be generated on the fly like that, a stick figure would do.
Devouring text like that, has been instrumental in learning for my students, especially for the ones who have English as a Second Language(ESL), so its usability in teaching would be interesting to discuss.
Do I think general open LLMs are the future? Fuck no. Do I think they are useless and unjustifiable? Neither. I think, at their current state, they are a brilliant beta test on the dangers and virtues of large language models and how they interact with the human psyche, and how they can help bridge the gap in understanding, and how they can help minorities, especially immigrants and other oppressed groups(Hence why I advocated for providing a class on how to use it appropriately for my ESL students) bridge gaps in understanding, help them realize their potential, and have a better future.
However, we need to solve or at least reduce the grip Capitalism has on that technology. As long as it is fueled by Capitalism, enshitification, dark patterns and many other evils will strip it of its virtues, and sell them for parts.
-
That's like saying "asbestos has some good uses, so we should just give every household a big pile of it without any training or PPE"
Or "we know leaded gas harms people, but we think it has some good uses so we're going to let everyone access it for basically free until someone eventually figures out what those uses might be"
It doesn't matter that it has some good uses and that later we went "oops, maybe let's only give it to experts to use". The harm has already been done by eager supporters, intentional or not.
No that is completely not what they are saying. Stop arguing strawmen.
-
AI is bad and people who use it should feel bad.
When people say this they are usually talking about a very specific sort of generative LLM using unsupervised learning.
AI is a very broad field with great potential, the improvements in cancer screening alone could save millions of lives over the coming decades. At the core it's just math, and the equations have been in use for almost as long as we've had computers. It's no more good or bad than calculus or trigonometry.
-
I can run a small LLM locally which I can talk to using voice to turn certain lights on and off, set reminders for me, play music etc.
There are MANY examples of LLM's being useful, it has its drawbacks just like any big technology, but saying it has no uses that aren't worth it, is ridiculous.
But we could do vocal assistants well before LLMs (look at siri) and without setting everything on fire.
And seriously, I asked for something that's worth all the down side and you bring up clippy 2.0 ???
Where are the MANY exemples ? why are LLMs/genAI company burning money ? where are the companies making use of of the suposedly many uses ?
I genuily want to understand.
-
This post did not contain any content.
synthophobes are easily manipulated
-
It will happen regardless because we are not machines, we don't follow theory, laws, instructions or whatever a system tells us to perfectly and without little changes here and there.
I think you are underestimating how adaptable humans are. We absolutely conform to the systems that govern us, and they are NOT equally likely to produce bad outcomes.
-
But he isn't speaking the truth. AI itself is a massive strain on the environment, without any true benefit. You are being fed hype and lies by con men. Data centers being built to supply AIs are using water and electricity at alarming rates, taking away the resources from actual people living nearby, and raising the cost of those utilities at the same time.
https://www.realtor.com/advice/finance/ai-data-centers-homeowner-electric-bills-link/
The problem is the companies building the data centers; they would be just as happy to waste the water and resources mining crypto or hosting cloud gaming, if not for AI it would be something else.
In China they're able to run DeepSeek without any water waste, because they cool the data centers with the ocean. DeepSeek also uses a fraction of the energy per query and is investing in solar and other renewables for energy.
AI is certainly an environmental issue, but it's only the most recent head of the big tech hydra.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
Take your pick from anything that isn't recent and by computer scientists or mathematicians, to call stuff intelligent that clearly isn't. According to some modern marketing takes I developed AI 20 years ago (optimizing search problems for agentic systems); it's just that my peers and I weren't stupid enough to call the results intelligent.
Yeah I read from that Wiki page — also from intelligence etymology and I totally get comments like yours. However saying LLMs are not AI and other kind of stuff are not AI can't be accepted and often can lead to misunderstanding to non-techies. On the same Wiki page, there's also mentioning about "Artificial", since it's artifical e.g. not created by nature and not having complex system like us humans, then LLMs can still be categorized as AI. Of course it will still have flaws tho. I'm here not to stand with LLMs but rather just want to tell people that terms misusage that I see oftentimes misleading and can spread misinformation. Let alone those big techs saying AI this and AI that whilst it's just a subset of AI like LLMs, I just don't want people here also falling in the same hole like those big techs that are using wrong terms in technology.
-
It will happen regardless because we are not machines, we don't follow theory, laws, instructions or whatever a system tells us to perfectly and without little changes here and there.
I see, so you don't understand. Or simply refuse to engage with what was asked.
-
When people say this they are usually talking about a very specific sort of generative LLM using unsupervised learning.
AI is a very broad field with great potential, the improvements in cancer screening alone could save millions of lives over the coming decades. At the core it's just math, and the equations have been in use for almost as long as we've had computers. It's no more good or bad than calculus or trigonometry.
No hope commenting like this, just get ready getting downvoted with no reason. People use wrong terms and normalize it.
-
They factually are. ML is AI. I think you mean AGI maybe?
AI > ML > DL > GenAi.
AI is a generic term for any LLM followed by Machine Learning, Deep Learning and Generative AI.
The hate against AI is hilariously misinformed.
-
Not really, since "AI" is a pre-existing and MUCH more general term which has been intentionally commandeered by bad actors to mean a particular type of AI.
AI remains a broader field of study.
I completely agree. Using AI to refer specifically to LLMs does reflect the influence of marketing from companies that may not fully represent the broader field of artificial intelligence. Sounds ironic to those who oppose LLM usage might end up sounding like the very bad actors they criticize if they also use the same misleading terms.
