Lemmy be like
-
Every system eventually ends with someone corrupted with power and greed wanting more. Putin and his oligrachs, Trump and his oligarchs... Xi isn't great, but at least I haven't heard news about the Uyghurs situation for a couple of years now. Hope things are better there nowadays and people aren't going missing anymore just for speaking out against their government.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Time doesn't end with corrupt power, those are just things that happen. Bad shit always happens, it's the Why, How Often and How We Fix It that are more indicative of success. Every machine breaks down eventually.
-
Rather, our problem is that we live in a world where the strongest will survive, and the strongest does not mean the smart... So alas we will always be in complete shit until we disappear.
wrote last edited by [email protected]The fittest survive. The problem is creating systems where the best fit are people who lack empathy and and a moral code.
A better solution would be selecting world leaders from the population at random.
-
I'm anti-censorship. Someone agreed with me because they were banned for anti-trans statements.
Just because someone's on your team doesn't mean they're going to help you.
-
Extreme oversimplification. Hammers don't kill the planet by simply existing.
And neither does AI? The massive data centers are having negative impacts on local economies, resources and the environment.
Just like a massive hammer factory, mines for the metals, logging for handles and manufacturing for all the chemicals, paints and varnishes have a negative environmental impact.
Saying something kills the planet by existing is an extreme hyperbole.
-
Do you really need to have a list of why people are sick of LLM and Ai slop?
We don't need a collection of random 'AI bad' articles because your entire premise is flawed.
In general, people are not 'sick of LLM and Ai slop'. Real people, who are not chronically online, have fairly positive views of AI and public sentiment about AI is actually becoming more positive over time.
Here is Stanford's report on the public opinion regarding AI (https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2024-ai-index-report/public-opinion).
Stop being a corporate apologist and stop wreaking the environment with this shit technology.
My dude, it sounds like you need to go out into the environment a bit more.
We don’t need a collection of random ‘AI bad’ articles because your entire premise is flawed.
god forbid you have evidence to support your premise. huh.
-
Because I used AI slop to create this shitpost lol.
So naturally it would make mistake.There are other mistakes in the image too
wrote last edited by [email protected]Makes for a confusing cartoon. I browsed too many of the comments thinking everyone knew what 3251 means except me. I thought a route 3252 road sign fell on him.
-
I never said I'm pro-AI?
You didn’t commit, sir.
-
You didn’t commit, sir.
Sorry, it didn't occur to me that you were 13.
-
OK, Mr. Big Brain Misuse-of-Terms. no point talking to someone who already thinks they know everything. Enjoy the echo chamber, lol.
AI bros accusing others of living in echo chambers is hilarious.
-
Sorry, it didn't occur to me that you were 13.
Failed again on multiple fronts.
Try using a double hyphen.
-
yeah this shit's working out GREAT
AI isn’t LLMs and image generators
-
My dude, it sounds like you need to go out into the environment a bit more.
oh you have a spare ecosystem in the closet for when this one is entirely fucked huh?
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/11/nx-s1-5088134/elon-musk-ai-xai-supercomputer-memphis-pollutionstop acting like it's a rumor. the problem is real, it's already here, they're already crashing to build the data centers - so what, we can get taylor swift grok porn? nothing in that graph supports your premise either.
That's stanford graph is based on queries from 2022 and 2023 - it's 2025 here in reality. Wake up. Times change.
That’s stanford graph is based on queries from 2022 and 2023 - it’s 2025 here in reality. Wake up. Times change
Objective polling shows attitudes about AI were improving. Do you have any actual evidence to support your implication that this is no longer the case?
Being self-righteous, rude and abrasive doesn't mean you're correct.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Wait to power tripper db0 sees this. Crying that their ai photos in all their coms are cringe
-
You're getting downvoted for providing a well founded argument that should facilitate a broader discussion. Jesus Christ what are we doing here, people?
It's honestly rediculous, it weakens actual valid concerns with AI.
-
That’s stanford graph is based on queries from 2022 and 2023 - it’s 2025 here in reality. Wake up. Times change
Objective polling shows attitudes about AI were improving. Do you have any actual evidence to support your implication that this is no longer the case?
Being self-righteous, rude and abrasive doesn't mean you're correct.
You disregard everyone else's evidence but expect us to embrace your two year old data.
you disregard what mental health experts are saying this is doing to actual people.
You callously disregard the wellbeing of others for the benefit of aibros. Just because you're ignoring the evidence doesn't mean you're correct numpty. Being willfully ignorant of the harms caused to the environment from this just tells me you're profiting off of it, or a fanboy.
-
AI isn’t LLMs and image generators
then pray tell where is it working out great?
again, you have nothing to refute the evidence placed before you except "ah that's a bunch of links" and "not everything is an llm"
so tell us where it's going so well.
Not the meacha-hitler swiftie porn, heh, yeah I wouldn't want to be associated with it either. But your aibros don't care.
-
Wouldn't posting articles about AI making up bullshit support their claim that AI makes up bullshit?
You would be right if they weren't posting the article using grok as the source for the main claim.
The articles were "grok claims it was suspended from x for accusing isreal of genocide" thats fine. It is hypocritical when you post that article to every news, politics and tech community. There were a few communities where people commented that grok is full of shit but way to many communities treated it as if it was solid evidence.
-
then pray tell where is it working out great?
again, you have nothing to refute the evidence placed before you except "ah that's a bunch of links" and "not everything is an llm"
so tell us where it's going so well.
Not the meacha-hitler swiftie porn, heh, yeah I wouldn't want to be associated with it either. But your aibros don't care.
I was talking about public perception of AI. There is a link to a study by a prestigious US university which support my claims.
AI is doing well in protein folding and robotics, for example
-
your source about beef relies on poore-nemecek 2018, a paper with dubious methodology
-
You would be right if they weren't posting the article using grok as the source for the main claim.
The articles were "grok claims it was suspended from x for accusing isreal of genocide" thats fine. It is hypocritical when you post that article to every news, politics and tech community. There were a few communities where people commented that grok is full of shit but way to many communities treated it as if it was solid evidence.
I don't understand what you're saying. Solid evidence for what? What is the "main claim?"
This reads like you're treating a group of people with diverse opinions as a monolith and assuming what they think based on aggregated comments on their posts.
