Brian Eno: “The biggest problem about AI is not intrinsic to AI. It’s to do with the fact that it’s owned by the same few people”
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
That article is overblown. People need to configure their websites to be more robust against traffic spikes, news at 11.
Disrespecting robots.txt is bad netiquette, but honestly this sort of gentleman's agreement is always prone to cheating. At the end of the day, when you put something on the net for people to access, you have to assume anyone (or anything) can try to access it.
You think Red Hat & friends are just all bad sysadmins? Source hut maybe...
I think there's a bit of both: poorly optimized/antiquated sites and a gigantic spike in unexpected and persistent bot traffic. The typical mitigations do not work anymore.
Not every site is and not every site should have to be optimized for hundreds of thousands of requests every day or more. Just because they can be doesn't mean that it's worth the time effort or cost.
-
brian eno is cooler than most of you can ever hope to be.
Dunno, the part about generative music (not like LLMs) I've tried, I think if I spent a few more years of weekly migraines on that, I'd become better.
-
My biggest gripe with current AI is the same problem I have with anything crypto.
It's out of control power consumption relative to the problem it solves or purpose it serves.Here we are using recycled bags, banning straws, putting explosive refrigerant in fridges and using led lights in everything, all in the name of the environment, while at the same time in some datacenter they are burning kwh’s by the bucket loads generating pictures of cats in space suits.
That's, #1, fashion and not about environment, #2, fashion promoted because it's cheaper for the industry.
And yes, power saved somewhere will just be spent elsewhere. Cheaper. Cause that means reduced demand for power (or grown not as fast as otherwise).
-
The biggest problem with AI is the damage it’s doing to human culture.
Not solving any of the stated goals at the same time.
It's a diversion. Its purpose is to divert resources and attention from any real progress in computing.
-
Sure. I worked in the game industry and sometimes AI can mean 'pick a random number if X occurs' or something equally simple, so I'm just used to the term used a few different ways.
Totally fair
-
Do you know someone who's read a billion books and can write a new (trashy) book in 5 mins?
No, but humans have differences in scale also. Should a person gifted with hyper-fast reading and writing ability be given less opportunity than a writer who takes a year to read a book and a decade to write one? Imo if the argument comes down to scale, it's kind of a shitty argument. Is the underlying principle faulty or not?
-
Attaching "tech" to everything makes it more palatable. Desirable even. It masks the fact that feudal lords are reinventing everything but with "tech".
Exactly. And it makes it seem more special or at least a new idea. It's not. We already have historical knowledge of what has worked in throwing off the shackles of monarchy and what hasn't.
-
Oh it's the same shit as Feudalism, but with technology... Thanks for letting me know that's what Techno-Feudalism means. So glad we had this enlightening conversation to figure out those two words.
Oh it's the same shit as feudalism, but with technology... Thanks for letting me know that's what Techno-Feudalism means.
Understanding the meaning and context of terms is very important.
... I guess we could add "global" to the front of it so you know it's not just happening in a castle in 14th century Europe, but all across the planet.
I find "neo-feudalism" more appropriate. The previous incarnation already spanned the known world at the time.
Like, how many castles were in Europe? Okay, compare that to how many Amazon's there are? It's not the same thing at all
That's really a comparison that makes me think that, perhaps, learning more about feudal history would do us all good. A more apt comparison would be "how many Vaticans were there?" (depending on the time period, two).
Rome was the seat of power through much of feudalism in the Common Era in Europe. Castles were extensions of the theocratic empire centered there, providing physical and visual/psychological enforcement of that power. Despite all of the war and megalomaniacal bickering, the feudal lords and kings all had the same boss.
There's less difference than you apparently think.
Sorry, I don't have time for this mind dulling discussion.
I'm sorry that you don't know enough about history to understand how nearly identical the two are and didn't mean to cause distress, not knowing how attached to the term you were.
G'luck.
-
I'm aware of this, but it still mostly just something for people speculate on. Something people buy, sit on, and then hopefully sell with a profit.
Bitcoin was supposed to be a decentralized money alternative, but the amount of people actually buying things with crypto are highly negligible.
And honestly even if was actually used for that the power consumption would still be something to discuss.
And honestly even if it did serve it's actual purpose, the cumulative power consumption would still be a point of debate.
Yeah, but at that point you'd have to consider it against how much power the traditional banking system uses.
-
For some reason the megacorps have got LLMs on the brain, and they're the worst "AI" I've seen. There are other types of AI that are actually impressive, but the "writes a thing that looks like it might be the answer" machine is way less useful than they think it is.
most LLM's for chat, pictures and clips are magical and amazing. For about 4 - 8 hours of fiddling then they lose all entertainment value.
As for practical use, the things can't do math so they're useless at work. I write better Emails on my own so I can't imagine being so lazy and socially inept that I need help writing an email asking for tech support or outlining an audit report. Sometimes the web summaries save me from clicking a result, but I usually do anyway because the things are so prone to very convincing halucinations, so yeah, utterly useless in their current state.
I usually get some angsty reply when I say this by some techbro-AI-cultist-singularity-head who starts whinging how it's reshaped their entire lives, but in some deep niche way that is completely irrelevant to the average working adult.
-
This post did not contain any content.
"Biggest" maybe. But it's not the only relevant problem. I think AI is gonna pan out like social media did, which is to say it's gonna be a shit show for society. And that would be the same no matter who owned it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
AI business is owned by a tiny group of technobros, who have no concern for what they have to do to get the results they want ("fuck the copyright, especially fuck the natural resources") who want to be personally seen as the saviours of humanity (despite not being the ones who invented and implemented the actual tech) and, like all big wig biz boys, they want all the money.
I don't have problems with AI tech in the principle, but I hate the current business direction and what the AI business encourages people to do and use the tech for.
-
And those people want to use AI to extract money and to lay off people in order to make more money.
That’s “guns don’t kill people” logic.
Yeah, the AI absolutely is a problem. For those reasons along with it being wrong a lot of the time as well as the ridiculous energy consumption.
Yeah, the AI absolutely is a problem.
AI is noto a problemi by itself, the problemi is that most of the people who make decisions in the workplace about these things do not understand what they are talking about and even less what something is capable of.
My impression is that AI now is what blockchain was some years ago, the solution to every problemi,which was of course false.
-
Ollama is FOSS, SD has a proproprietary but permissive, source-available license, but it is not what most people would associate with "open-source"
Fair, it may not be strictly FOSS but I think my point still stands. If people are worried about AI being owned by "the elite" they can just run Ollama.
-
More broadly, I would expect UBI to trigger a golden age of invention and artistic creation because a lot of people would love to spend their time just creating new stuff without the need to monetise it but can't under the current system.
I don't know nearly enough history to be an expert on this subject, but I've heard that one of the causes of the Enlightenment was because peasants and poors were able to afford to spend time learning and creating, rather than substinance-farming.
-
most LLM's for chat, pictures and clips are magical and amazing. For about 4 - 8 hours of fiddling then they lose all entertainment value.
As for practical use, the things can't do math so they're useless at work. I write better Emails on my own so I can't imagine being so lazy and socially inept that I need help writing an email asking for tech support or outlining an audit report. Sometimes the web summaries save me from clicking a result, but I usually do anyway because the things are so prone to very convincing halucinations, so yeah, utterly useless in their current state.
I usually get some angsty reply when I say this by some techbro-AI-cultist-singularity-head who starts whinging how it's reshaped their entire lives, but in some deep niche way that is completely irrelevant to the average working adult.
The delusional maniacs are going to be surprised when they ask the Super AI "how do we solve global warming?" and the answer is "build lots of solar, wind, and storage, and change infrastructure in cities to support walking, biking, and public transportation".
-
I'm aware of this, but it still mostly just something for people speculate on. Something people buy, sit on, and then hopefully sell with a profit.
Bitcoin was supposed to be a decentralized money alternative, but the amount of people actually buying things with crypto are highly negligible.
And honestly even if was actually used for that the power consumption would still be something to discuss.
Yes, most people buy, sit on, and then hopefully sell with a profit.
However, there are a large number of devs building useful things (supply chain, money transfer, digital identity). Most as good as, but not yet better than incumbent solutions.
My main challenge is the energy misconception. The ethereum network runs on the energy equivalent of a single wind turbine.
-
"Biggest" maybe. But it's not the only relevant problem. I think AI is gonna pan out like social media did, which is to say it's gonna be a shit show for society. And that would be the same no matter who owned it.
Both AI and social media are a shit show because it's owned by a few people.
Unironically, the best social media is Fetlife. Not that it's perfect by any means--not by far--but it is designed to facilitate bringing people together.
-
Two intrinsic problems with the current implementations of AI is that they are insanely resource-intensive and require huge training sets. Neither of those is directly a problem of ownership or control, though both favor larger players with more money.
If gigantic amounts of capital weren't available, then the focus would be on improving the models so they don't need GPU farms running off nuclear reactors plus the sum total of all posts on the Internet ever.
