Lemmy be like
-
What? Elon Musk’s xAI data center in Tennessee (when fully expanded & operational) will need 2 GW of energy. That’s as much as some entire cities use in a year.
Rockstar games: 6k employees 20 kwatt hours per square foot https://esource.bizenergyadvisor.com/article/large-offices 150 square feet per employee https://unspot.com/blog/how-much-office-space-do-we-need-per-employee/#%3A~%3Atext=The+needed+workspace+may+vary+in+accordance
18,000,000,000 watt hours
vs
10,000,000,000 watt hours for ChatGPT training
https://www.washington.edu/news/2023/07/27/how-much-energy-does-chatgpt-use/
Yet there's no hand wringing over the environmental destruction caused by 3d gaming.
-
And the point of anarchist or actual communist systems is that such scale would be miniscule. Not massive national or unanswerable state scales.
And yes, I'm an anarchist. I know DB0 and their instance and generally agree with their stance - because it would allow any one of us to effectively advocate against it if we desired to.
There would be no tech broligarchy forcing things on anyone. They'd likely all be hanged long ago. And no one would miss them as they provide nothing of real value anyway.
And the point of anarchist or actual communist systems is that such scale would be miniscule.
Every community running their own AI would be even more wasteful than corporate centralization. It doesn't matter what the system is if people want it.
-
It's funny watching you AI bros climb over each other to be the first with a what about-ism.
wrote last edited by [email protected]See I get the point of people hating what they call 'AI' here, I totally get it but I can't see people using wrong terms since I know the correct one. The big corpos already misuse the term saying everything they made AI without specifying what kind of AI it is and people here that I assume techie also went to the wrong path (so you guys sounds the same as those evils, and u fell on the marketing). It's not about whataboutism — it's fixing what people always normalize using wrong terms when talking about technical stuff. I don't care if you still don't get it tho, I do what I can for saying the truth. And I don't think you do know what 'whataboutism' really is.
-
I mostly used it for irony, this is a shitpost after all and to make the orange arrow blue.
But it messed some other things up along the way.
Happy accidentsYou know, I was really hoping people would just use the existing tools rather than AI. You used AI instead of the fucking paint bucket tool in ANY photo/drawing tool. Unbelievable
-
Rockstar games: 6k employees 20 kwatt hours per square foot https://esource.bizenergyadvisor.com/article/large-offices 150 square feet per employee https://unspot.com/blog/how-much-office-space-do-we-need-per-employee/#%3A~%3Atext=The+needed+workspace+may+vary+in+accordance
18,000,000,000 watt hours
vs
10,000,000,000 watt hours for ChatGPT training
https://www.washington.edu/news/2023/07/27/how-much-energy-does-chatgpt-use/
Yet there's no hand wringing over the environmental destruction caused by 3d gaming.
And then you have a trained model that requires vast amounts of energy per request, right? It doesn't stop at training.
You need obscene amounts GPU power to run the 'better' models within reasonable response times.
In comparison, I could game on my modest rig just fine, but I can't run a 22B model locally in any useful capacity while programming.
Sure, you could argue gaming is a waste of energy, but that doesn't mean we can't argue that it shouldn't have to cost boiling a shitload of eggs to ask AI how long a single one should. Or each time I start typing a line of code for that matter.
-
AI is good and cheap now because businesses are funding it at a loss, so not sure what you mean here.
The problem is that it's cheap, so that anyone can make whatever they want and most people make low quality slop, hence why it's not "good" in your eyes.
Making a cheap or efficient AI doesn't help the end user in any way.
It appears good and cheap. But it's actually burning money, energy and water like crazy.
I think somebody mentioned to generate a 10 second video, it's the equivalent in energy consumption as driving a bike for 100km.It's not sustainable.
I think the thing the person above you is referring to is if we ever manage to make LLMs and such which can be run locally on a phone or laptop with good results. That would make people experiment and try out things themselves, instead of being dependent on paying monthly for some services that can change anytime. -
You could have taken a screenshot from Spielberg's A.I. Artificial Intelligence.
It's funny how much that movie got right. I don't think it was meant to be predictive. Many Lemmy users will probably think it is the greatest comedy ever made.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I didn't like that movie back then, I thought it was too on the nose and weird.
But wow, this has aged like fine wine, that clip was amazing
When are we going to have actual violence against androids
-
It appears good and cheap. But it's actually burning money, energy and water like crazy.
I think somebody mentioned to generate a 10 second video, it's the equivalent in energy consumption as driving a bike for 100km.It's not sustainable.
I think the thing the person above you is referring to is if we ever manage to make LLMs and such which can be run locally on a phone or laptop with good results. That would make people experiment and try out things themselves, instead of being dependent on paying monthly for some services that can change anytime.You and OP are misunderstanding what is meant by good and cheap.
It's not cheap from a resource perspective like you say. However that is irrelevant for the end user. It's "cheap" already because it is either free or costs considerably less for the user than the cost of the resources used. OpenAI or Meta or Twitter are paying the cost. You do not need to pay for a monthly subscription to use AI.
So the quality of the content created is not limited by cost.
If the AI bubble popped, this won't improve AI quality.
-
It appears good and cheap. But it's actually burning money, energy and water like crazy.
I think somebody mentioned to generate a 10 second video, it's the equivalent in energy consumption as driving a bike for 100km.It's not sustainable.
I think the thing the person above you is referring to is if we ever manage to make LLMs and such which can be run locally on a phone or laptop with good results. That would make people experiment and try out things themselves, instead of being dependent on paying monthly for some services that can change anytime.i mean. i have a 15 amp fuse in my apartment and a 10 second cideo takes like 10 minutes to make, i dont know how much energy a 4090 draws but anyone that has an issue with me using mine to generate a 10 second bideo better not play pc games.
-
Just because it isn't all bad doesn't mean that a significant portion of it is in fact, bad.
Yes but IMO there is still a over reaction to it on Lemmy.
Let's not pretend LLMs are the devil
-
What kind of selfish, emotionless psychopath do you have to be to legitimately think that libraries being unused, forgotten, and closed is a good thing?
You ever thought about this: maybe if you visited your library in person more often, you'd actually have more friends.
I never said that.
All I'm saying is just because The Internet caused library use to plummet doesn't mean Internet = Bad.
-
And the point of anarchist or actual communist systems is that such scale would be miniscule.
Every community running their own AI would be even more wasteful than corporate centralization. It doesn't matter what the system is if people want it.
The point is, most wouldn't. It's of little real use currently, especially the LLM bullshit. The communities would have infinitely better things to pit resources to.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The currently hot LLM technology is very interesting and I believe it has legitimate use cases. If we develop them into tools that help assist work. (For example, I'm very intrigued by the stuff that's happening in the accessibility field.)
I mostly have problem with the AI business. Ludicruous use cases (shoving AI into places where it has no business in). Sheer arrogance about the sociopolitics in general. Environmental impact. LLMs aren't good enough for "real" work, but snake oil salesmen keep saying they can do that, and uncritical people keep falling for it.
And of course, the social impact was just not what we were ready for. "Move fast and break things" may be a good mantra for developing tech, but not for releasing stuff that has vast social impact.
I believe the AI business and the tech hype cycle is ultimately harming the field. Usually, AI technologies just got gradually developed and integrated to software where they served purpose. Now, it's marred with controversy for decades to come.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm a lot more sick of the word 'slop' than I am of AI. Please, when you criticize AI, form an original thought next time.
-
DB0 has a rather famous record of banning users who do not agree with AI. See [email protected] or others for many threads complaining about it.
You have no way of knowing what the scale would be as it's all a thought experiment, however, so let's play at that. if you see AI as a nearly universal good and want to encourage people to use it, why not incorporate it into things? Why not foist it into the state OS or whatever?
Buuuuut... keep in mind that in previous Communist regimes (even if you disagree that they were "real" Communists), what the state says will apply. If the state is actively pro-AI, then by default, you are using it. Are you too good to use what your brothers and sisters have said is good and will definitely 100% save labour? Are you wasteful, Comrade? Why do you hate your country?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yes, I have seen posts on it. Sufficed to say, despite being an anarchist. I don't have an account there for reasons. And don't agree with everything they do.
The situation with those bans I might consider heavy handed and perhaps overreaching. But by the same token it's a bit of a reflection of some of those that are banned. Overzealous and lacking nuance etc.
The funny thing is. They pretty much dislike the tech bros as much as anyone here does. You generally won't ever find them defending their actions. They want AI etc that they can run from their home. Not snarfing up massive public resources, massively contributing to climate change, or stealing anyone's livelihood. Hell many of them want to run off the grid from wind and solar. But, as always happens with the left. We can agree with eachother 90%, but will never tolerate or understand because of the 10%.
PS
We do know the scale. Your use of "the state" with reference to anarchism. Implies you're unfamiliar with it. Anarchism and communism are against "the state" for the reasons you're also warry of it. It's too powerful and unanswerable.
-
We should ban computers since they are making mass surveillance easier. /s
we should allow lead in paint its easier to use /s
You are deliberatly missing my point which is : gen AI as an enormous amount of downside and no real world use.
-
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
I ask for an example making up for the downside everyone as to pay.
so, no ! A better shutter puller or a maybe marginally better vocal assitant is not gonna cut it.
And again that's stuff siri and domotic tools where able to do since 2014 at a minimum. -
This post did not contain any content.
The reason most web forum posters hate AI is because AI is ruining web forums by polluting it with inauthentic garbage. Don't be treating it like it's some sort of irrational bandwagon.
-
AI is good and cheap now because businesses are funding it at a loss, so not sure what you mean here.
The problem is that it's cheap, so that anyone can make whatever they want and most people make low quality slop, hence why it's not "good" in your eyes.
Making a cheap or efficient AI doesn't help the end user in any way.
I'm using "good" in almost a moral sense. The quality of output from LLMs and generative AI is already about as good as it can get from a technical standpoint, continuing to throw money and data at it will only result in minimal improvement.
What I mean by "good AI" is the potential of new types of AI models to be trained for things like diagnosing cancer, and and other predictive tasks that we haven't thought of yet that actually have the potential to help humanity (and not just put artists and authors out of their jobs).
The work of training new, useful AI models is going to be done by scientists and researchers, probably on a limited budgets because there won't be a clear profit motive, and they won't be able to afford thousands of $20,000 GPUs like are being thrown at LLMs and generative AI today. But as the current AI race crashes and burns, the used hardware of today will be more affordable and hopefully actually get used for useful AI projects.
-
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.
