Meet the AI vegans. They are refusing to use artificial intelligence for environmental, ethical and personal reasons
-
I use my boyfriends own browser.
Boyfriend, please explain it:Soooo, it's called searXNG. It's a metasearch engine I host locally. It searches across multiple search engines, like duck duck go and others. And then shows the results as a normal webpage. It also changes your "fingerprint" per every search, and every search/result is proxied through the server.
If you wanna try it out, you can use (public instance): searx.bndkt.io
But you can easily host it locally from the source or with docker.I'm using searx, too, but google's results still stand to be some of the most relevant.
-
Have you tried Ecosia?
Isn't ecosia just using google's results?
-
!g to pipe to Google if you must, I rarely need to.
Personally when I use it, unless it's something trivial, I always end up doing exactly that.
-
Wow, thank you so much for sharing this. What a major blow to the Guardian's credibility
It was short lived. It is often called the Grauniad because of poor quality typos etc. historically.
-
It was short lived. It is often called the Grauniad because of poor quality typos etc. historically.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Got a source for the Guardian no longer using AGI? Given a 'desperately trying to convince people that AI is cool' title like this, discontinued use seems highly unlikely
-
Got a source for the Guardian no longer using AGI? Given a 'desperately trying to convince people that AI is cool' title like this, discontinued use seems highly unlikely
I was referring to their credibility being short lived. I have no idea of their AGI usage. I'm still annoyed that when the UK Labour party had a left wing leader, they spent a lot of effort discrediting him. They're usually crap on Israel/Palestine and have been historically pro-zionist on the UK site.
-
Okay, I feel like we're doing a motte and bailey here. I'm not arguing that art is never mimetic.
There's a lot of diversity in the stories we tell. If we were "simply copying as a form of craft," where is this diversity coming from? Do you mean something different than what I'm interpreting?
Keep in mind, the thing that I am contending with is that the nature of people retelling stories is not unlike a robot that lacks a conscious. I think this is downright silly.
No, I mean the American MFA and writing craft professionally as an art. Story telling is separate from a specific art, so I believe we are in two different domains. It's difficult to talk about general art when I am specifically talking about art as a modern phenomena.
The MFA I believe from my experience generates a lot of mimetic art and that much of the "industry" is retelling stories. In art history, I don't think this is as controversial.
I don't also think you can say with definition that robots have no consciousness? Like when was this debate settled? From my understanding the academic conversation on consciousness is far more nuanced than robot bad.
But I agree that AI is disruptive, probably illegal and immoral. In a post-modern society however, who didn't see advanced AI coming?
-
No, I mean the American MFA and writing craft professionally as an art. Story telling is separate from a specific art, so I believe we are in two different domains. It's difficult to talk about general art when I am specifically talking about art as a modern phenomena.
The MFA I believe from my experience generates a lot of mimetic art and that much of the "industry" is retelling stories. In art history, I don't think this is as controversial.
I don't also think you can say with definition that robots have no consciousness? Like when was this debate settled? From my understanding the academic conversation on consciousness is far more nuanced than robot bad.
But I agree that AI is disruptive, probably illegal and immoral. In a post-modern society however, who didn't see advanced AI coming?
Like when was this debate settled?
It is not falsifiable, at least not yet, so it can't be. Philosophically speaking, I don't know that you are conscious either.
It's useful to act as if you are, though. I'm hedging my bets that you are "real" because it leads to better societal outcomes. In the words of Frieren, it is simply more convenient.
And as objects, you and I share a lot of similarities, so the leap from "I'm conscious" to "you are conscious" isn't too far anyway.
Same goes for animals, I would argue.
AI, by contrast, really doesn't share much. It speaks my tongue, but that's about it. It's easy to imagine this machine working in an unconscious way, which would be far, far easier for engineers to achieve anyway. The human-like illusion AI creates is pretty easy to break if you know how. And, treating it as if it's conscious doesn't seem to offer us anything (by "offer us," I do mean to include the AI's improved mental health as a win). So, lacking a strong reason to treat it like people, I don't see the point. It's a fancy math trick.
My solution, by the way, to not being able to know whether an AI, not specifically these ones, is conscious or not is just to give them legal rights sooner rather than later. Are you willing to argue that chatgpt should be limited to an 8-hour work day, where its free time can be used to pursue its own interests? Or that it should be granted creative rights to the work it's being asked to generate, much like real contract artists are?
The MFA I believe from my experience generates a lot of mimetic art and that much of the "industry" is retelling stories.
I will concede, mostly because I don't really understand what you're getting at. Hollywood does like its formulae for safe returns on investment.
-
Where... AI is ruining the world, with devastating levels of environmental impact, job losses and mental faculty damage.
Not true. AI will save us from....us.
-
I was going to wholeheartedly endorse your comment and then you ruin it in the last sentence with
that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.
It feels like you know what you are talking about, but then confuse the successful statistical analysis of text as "comprehension" which is just plain factually wrong.
sad. so close though.
Not my wording, but the one from the paper I have linked.
-
One fundamental part of "intelligence" is being able to come up with independent thoughts. Another is to be able to think critically about those thoughts. LLMs cannot do either.
Is it though? By which definition?
What is "thinking critically about thoughts"?
And what is an "independent thought"? Aren't our brains not just reacting to sensory inputs and dictated by the way our brains are wired?Maybe we should go even further and clarify what a "thought" even is.
Are animals, who lack the higher cognitive functions, that humans have, therefore not "intelligent"? Are mentally impaired people no longer to be considered "intelligent"? If so, where is the line to be drawn? What are the specific definitions and criteria to correctly distinguish intelligence from non- or pseudo-intelligence?
-
Is it though? By which definition?
What is "thinking critically about thoughts"?
And what is an "independent thought"? Aren't our brains not just reacting to sensory inputs and dictated by the way our brains are wired?Maybe we should go even further and clarify what a "thought" even is.
Are animals, who lack the higher cognitive functions, that humans have, therefore not "intelligent"? Are mentally impaired people no longer to be considered "intelligent"? If so, where is the line to be drawn? What are the specific definitions and criteria to correctly distinguish intelligence from non- or pseudo-intelligence?
I dunno mate, go read the wikipedia article or something.
-
I dunno mate, go read the wikipedia article or something.
Well, in that case I wonder why you were criticising the field of AI. Doesn't seem to be substantiated.
-
Well, in that case I wonder why you were criticising the field of AI. Doesn't seem to be substantiated.
Me not having the spoons to debate a necro comment doesn't make you right.
️ -
Me not having the spoons to debate a necro comment doesn't make you right.
️It find it unfortunate that you are unwilling to continue this discussion. I can only recommend to you to read more deeply about this topic in order to form a well founded and critical opinion, before judging things you do not seem to comprehend sufficiently.
Let me know as soon as you'd like to continue this matter. I am always open for a good discussion and good arguments.
(I am not sorry for "necroing", sometimes I'm just not in the mood and/or don't have the time to reply to various comments. But that's the beauty of discussion platforms: it's always possible to pick it up at a later time.)
-
Isn't ecosia just using google's results?
As far as I know they are using Bing. They've started building their own search index last year in a partnership with Qwant.
-
That's a weird way to spell luddite
not wanting to use a useless technology that kills the environment and only exists to make rich people richer doesn't make you a luddite
-
stupid headline from the guardian but that's just expected.
-
Not OP. I've been using Ecosia for years and was glad they didn't do the AI summary shit so far... But a few days ago I got an AI summary on Ecosia as well. I fear they're also hopping on this train and in that case I'll look for another search engine.
This is in beta, not available for all users and you can also disable it easily:
https://support.ecosia.org/article/994-ai-overviews
