Lemmy be like
-
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.
You’re repeating debunked claims that are being pushed by tech giants to lobby for laws to monopolize AI control.
I’d rather read AI crap than this idiocy.
-
Wouldn't the opposite of artificial intelligence be natural stupidity?
-
Did I say that?
Show me the place where I said that. Show it to me.
Come on. Show me the place where I said everything related to AI is negative. Show me even a place where you could reasonably construe that's what I meant.If you're talking about why we can't have a conversation, take a long hard look in the fucking mirror you goddamn hypocrite.
First you should chill a bit.
I know you think this will harm you and everyone you know,
So this thing will harm you. But you are not describing AI as only negative ?
You just say AI will harm you and suppose people assume you have positive thing to say about AI
Where is the nuance toward AI in your comment please show it to me.
-
I put the final answer in Watt hours, not Kw hours to match. ChatGPT used 10B watt hours, not 10B Kwatt hours.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Ahh was wondering where the factor of 1000 came from.
Without turning into a complete shootout, I can kind of see the point with comparing energy usage, but as others have said with these massive data centers it’s like comparing two similar but ultimately different kinds of beasts.
Beyond just the energy used in training of generative AI models in data centers, there’s also the energy it needs to fulfill requests once implemented (24/7, thousands of prompts per second).
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Whether intentional or not, this is gaslighting. "Here's the trendy reaction those wacky lemmings are currently upvoting!"
Getting to the core issue, of course we're sick of AI, and have a negative opinion of it! It's being forced into every product, whether it makes sense or not. It's literally taking developer jobs, then doing worse. It's burning fossil fuels and VC money and then hallucinating nonsense, but still it's being jammed down our throats when the vast majority of us see no use-case or benefit from it. But feel free to roll your eyes at those acknowledging the truth...
-
Ahh was wondering where the factor of 1000 came from.
Without turning into a complete shootout, I can kind of see the point with comparing energy usage, but as others have said with these massive data centers it’s like comparing two similar but ultimately different kinds of beasts.
Beyond just the energy used in training of generative AI models in data centers, there’s also the energy it needs to fulfill requests once implemented (24/7, thousands of prompts per second).
here’s also the energy it needs to fulfill requests once implemented
Just like everyone playing the 3d game once its finished development and sold. A few hours of gaming or a few hours of making AI slop photos is the same watts. No one notices the energy when its spread across millions of homes as compared to centralized at a data center. A few years ago Nvidia, Microsoft and others were pushing gaming as a streaming service (The games were being run remotely and your keyboard/gamepad was transmitted to their servers, then the video was streamed back). Those used massive data centers. Yet no one was screaming to stop gaming.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Reddit too
-
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.
If we develop them into tools that help assist work.
Spoilers: We will not
I believe the AI business and the tech hype cycle is ultimately harming the field.
I think this is just an American way of doing business. And it's awful, but at the end of the day people will adopt technology if it makes them greater profit (or at least screws over the correct group of people).
But where the Americanized AI seems to suffer most is in their marketing fully eclipsing their R&D. People seem to have forgotten how DeepSeek spiked the football on OpenAI less than a year ago by making some marginal optimizations to their algorithm.
The field isn't suffering from the hype cycle nearly so much as it suffers from malinvestment. Huge efforts to make the platform marketable. Huge efforts to shoehorn clumsy chat bots into every nook and cranny of the OS interface. Vanishingly little effort to optimize material consumption or effectively process data or to segregate AI content from the human data it needs to improve.
-
First you should chill a bit.
I know you think this will harm you and everyone you know,
So this thing will harm you. But you are not describing AI as only negative ?
You just say AI will harm you and suppose people assume you have positive thing to say about AI
Where is the nuance toward AI in your comment please show it to me.
You know that things can both harm and benefit you, right? That's the whole idea behind the idiom "the pros outweigh the cons".
If someone is making an argument about the cons of a thing, it's insane to expect them to just list of a bunch of unrelated pros, and likewise it's an unreasonable assumption to believe from that, that they don't believe in the existence of any pros.
I think that LLMs cause significant harm, and we don't have any harm mitigation in place to protect us. In light of the serious potential for widespread harm, the pros (of which there are some) dont really matter until we make serious progress in reducing the potential for harm.
I shouldn't need this degree of nuance. People shouldn't need to get warnings in the form of a short novel full of couched language. I'm not the only person in this conversation, the proponents are already presenting the pros. And people should be able to understand that.
When people were fighting against leaded gasoline, they shouldn't need to "yes, it makes cars more fuel efficient and prevents potentially damaging engine knock, thereby reducing average maintenance costs" every time they speak about the harms. It is unreasonable to say that they were harming discourse by not acknowledging the benefits every time they cautioned against it's use.
I don't believe that you're making a genuine argument, I believe you're trying to stifle criticism by shifting the responsibility for nuance from it's rightful place in the hands of the people selling and supporting a product with the potential for harm, onto the critics.
-
here’s also the energy it needs to fulfill requests once implemented
Just like everyone playing the 3d game once its finished development and sold. A few hours of gaming or a few hours of making AI slop photos is the same watts. No one notices the energy when its spread across millions of homes as compared to centralized at a data center. A few years ago Nvidia, Microsoft and others were pushing gaming as a streaming service (The games were being run remotely and your keyboard/gamepad was transmitted to their servers, then the video was streamed back). Those used massive data centers. Yet no one was screaming to stop gaming.
Now it will be PCs spread out in addition to large data centers in combo that will be consuming energy.
And I do remember that phase of game/device streaming! I was a bit skeptical of it all and ended up never using those technologies but that did allow me to learn about alternatives like Moonlight/Sunshine.
-
You know that things can both harm and benefit you, right? That's the whole idea behind the idiom "the pros outweigh the cons".
If someone is making an argument about the cons of a thing, it's insane to expect them to just list of a bunch of unrelated pros, and likewise it's an unreasonable assumption to believe from that, that they don't believe in the existence of any pros.
I think that LLMs cause significant harm, and we don't have any harm mitigation in place to protect us. In light of the serious potential for widespread harm, the pros (of which there are some) dont really matter until we make serious progress in reducing the potential for harm.
I shouldn't need this degree of nuance. People shouldn't need to get warnings in the form of a short novel full of couched language. I'm not the only person in this conversation, the proponents are already presenting the pros. And people should be able to understand that.
When people were fighting against leaded gasoline, they shouldn't need to "yes, it makes cars more fuel efficient and prevents potentially damaging engine knock, thereby reducing average maintenance costs" every time they speak about the harms. It is unreasonable to say that they were harming discourse by not acknowledging the benefits every time they cautioned against it's use.
I don't believe that you're making a genuine argument, I believe you're trying to stifle criticism by shifting the responsibility for nuance from it's rightful place in the hands of the people selling and supporting a product with the potential for harm, onto the critics.
It's just as insane for you to expect us to read between the line of a 4 line comment that only present AI as harmful.
If you want to say that AI is both good and bad, that's fine but then say that. It doesn't have to be a book about it. You could have juste said AI can be harmful or good and that's fine. Don't act as if i'm asking for something unreasonable. You said one negative thing in a 4 line comment and feel personally attacked that we are unable to guess what positive thing you see in AI.
-
Linguistically correct, and morally correct, are not the same thing.
So are you saying that a slur (for Black people, for example) is linguistically "correct by definition" ? And it actually describes members of the demographic?
-
It doesn't matter what you want, I'm just describing how language works.
If everyone says a word means a thing, then it means that thing. Words can have multiple meanings.
AI remains a broader field of study, an active field of study which tons of people are invested in, and they use AI to refer to the broader field of study in which they're professionally invested.
I’m just describing how language works.
No you're not. And you're not as smart as you think you are.
If everyone says a word means a thing
It's not literally everybody, and you know it, and you also know that LLMs are not the entire actual category of AI.
-
Lots of pro AI astroturfing and whataboutisms in these comments...
Only because most of the people here don't have the faintest idea what AI is or how it works.
-
Did I say that?
Show me the place where I said that. Show it to me.
Come on. Show me the place where I said everything related to AI is negative. Show me even a place where you could reasonably construe that's what I meant.If you're talking about why we can't have a conversation, take a long hard look in the fucking mirror you goddamn hypocrite.
lol, you literally put words in the original commenter's mouth:
I know you think this will harm you and everyone you know, but it'll be much better if you just stay quiet instead of vocally opposing it
and now you're incredulous about something similar being done to you? lame
-
Wouldn't the opposite of artificial intelligence be natural stupidity?
natural is a superfluous word that could mean multiple things. genuine means specific and vetted.
ie: "Natural Flavors"
-
Whether intentional or not, this is gaslighting. "Here's the trendy reaction those wacky lemmings are currently upvoting!"
Getting to the core issue, of course we're sick of AI, and have a negative opinion of it! It's being forced into every product, whether it makes sense or not. It's literally taking developer jobs, then doing worse. It's burning fossil fuels and VC money and then hallucinating nonsense, but still it's being jammed down our throats when the vast majority of us see no use-case or benefit from it. But feel free to roll your eyes at those acknowledging the truth...
Are you honestly claiming a shitpost is gaslighting?
What a world we live in.
-
I don't get to decide if the marketing terms used by the companies I hate end up becoming the common terms.
If I stubbornly refuse to use the common terms and instead only use the technical terms, then I'm only limiting the reach of my message.
OpenAI marketing has successfully made LLM one of the definitions of the term AI, and the most common term used to refer to the tech, in public spaces.
If I stubbornly refuse to use the common terms and instead only use the technical terms ...
That's where your role takes part as someone who knows the correct term. I myself often teach my close ones about tech and its terms in my field. I don't want to normalize using wrong terms in a technical discussion. It's just depending on us to teach what's right or just being comfortable what is already wrong and doing nothing about it. Activists are educators as much as they are advocates.
-
Providing a counterexample to a claim is not whataboutism.
Whataboutism involves derailing a conversation with an ad-hominem to avoid addressing someone's argument, like what you just did.
AI use = small dick energy.
-
Machines replacing people is not a bad thing if they can actually perform the same or better; the solution to unemployment would be Universal Basic Income.
Yeah, that would be the solution, but it's never happening.
