Lemmy be like
-
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?
A slur is still a word.
I know youre trying to trap me in some stupid gotcha, but idk what you think that'd prove.What would you consider "linguistically correct" if not "follows grammar rules and conveys the intended meaning"?
If I say something absolutely heinous about your mother, does it stop being valid English just because it is morally reprehensible and fallacious? Of course not.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Your clearly didn't actually read the nuanced take, which is why I didn't provide a nuanced take in the first place.
I didn't expect you to read between the lines.
Rather, I'm shocked that you expect people raising the alarm about something to also promote all the good features of the harmful thing, in the same breath.Watch out! The Ford Pinto may explode while you're driving it! But wow, what a bargain! You'll burn to death, but you'll look chic in that fantastic modern styling, and the fuel economy is great! Take yours home today for only $8000!
Like can you imagine?
-
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
ah what great advances has alpha fold delivered?
and that robotics training, where has that improved human lives? because near as I can tell it's simply going to put people out of work. the lowest paid people. so that's just great.
but let's give you some slack: let's leave it to protein folding and robotics and stop sticking it into every fuckin facet of our civilization.
and protein folding and robotics training wouldn't require google, x, meta and your grandmother to be rolling out datacenters EVERYWHERE, driving up the costs of electricity for the average user, while polluting the air and water.
Faux, I get it, you're an aibro, you really are a believer. Evidence isn't going to sway you because this isn't evidence driven. The suffering of others isn't going to bother you, that's their problem. The damage to the ecosystem isn't your problem, you apparently don't need water or air to exist. You got it made bro.
pfft.
-
ah what great advances has alpha fold delivered?
and that robotics training, where has that improved human lives? because near as I can tell it's simply going to put people out of work. the lowest paid people. so that's just great.
but let's give you some slack: let's leave it to protein folding and robotics and stop sticking it into every fuckin facet of our civilization.
and protein folding and robotics training wouldn't require google, x, meta and your grandmother to be rolling out datacenters EVERYWHERE, driving up the costs of electricity for the average user, while polluting the air and water.
Faux, I get it, you're an aibro, you really are a believer. Evidence isn't going to sway you because this isn't evidence driven. The suffering of others isn't going to bother you, that's their problem. The damage to the ecosystem isn't your problem, you apparently don't need water or air to exist. You got it made bro.
pfft.
wrote last edited by [email protected]ah what great advances has alpha fold delivered?
The ability to know how any sequence of amino acids will create a protein and what shape the protein would have. This also led to other scientists creating diffusion models which can be prompted with protein properties and they generate the sequence of amino acids which will create a protein with those properties. We also can write those arbitrary sequences into mRNA and introduce that into a local area of our cells.
But what do I know, I'm just an aibro. So, I'll listen to scientists who write peer reviewed papers which are published in scientific journals: AI-Enabled Protein Design: A Strategic Asset for Global Health and Biosecurity
and that robotics training, where has that improved human lives?
Well, Fukushima would be one place.
Now they can use disposable robotic dogs to do clean up and monitoring in high radiation areas. A job that humans were doing at the beginning. I'm sure those humans appreciate not having to die of cancer early.
Faux, I get it, you’re an aibro, you really are a believer. Evidence isn’t going to sway you because this isn’t evidence driven. The suffering of others isn’t going to bother you, that’s their problem. The damage to the ecosystem isn’t your problem, you apparently don’t need water or air to exist. You got it made bro
. If you can't win an argument just switch to insults, the tactic of choice for the ignorant. -
ah what great advances has alpha fold delivered?
The ability to know how any sequence of amino acids will create a protein and what shape the protein would have. This also led to other scientists creating diffusion models which can be prompted with protein properties and they generate the sequence of amino acids which will create a protein with those properties. We also can write those arbitrary sequences into mRNA and introduce that into a local area of our cells.
But what do I know, I'm just an aibro. So, I'll listen to scientists who write peer reviewed papers which are published in scientific journals: AI-Enabled Protein Design: A Strategic Asset for Global Health and Biosecurity
and that robotics training, where has that improved human lives?
Well, Fukushima would be one place.
Now they can use disposable robotic dogs to do clean up and monitoring in high radiation areas. A job that humans were doing at the beginning. I'm sure those humans appreciate not having to die of cancer early.
Faux, I get it, you’re an aibro, you really are a believer. Evidence isn’t going to sway you because this isn’t evidence driven. The suffering of others isn’t going to bother you, that’s their problem. The damage to the ecosystem isn’t your problem, you apparently don’t need water or air to exist. You got it made bro
. If you can't win an argument just switch to insults, the tactic of choice for the ignorant.wrote last edited by [email protected]Ah I see you read a wiki article and consider yourself an expert, again.
what has it DELIVERED?
In the not-so-distant future, the authors envision
my god man, what has it delivered?
But what do I know, I’m just an aibro
yes yes that's been established.
Now they can use disposable robotic dogs to do clean up and monitoring in high radiation areas. A
now you're just lying. the robots used in fukushima aren't AI trained.
you're so fulla shit it's dripping down your beard. gonna block you now, go lie to someone else.
-
Literacy what? Just let me watch something funny.
This is like the most pro-illiteracy thing I've ever read.
Do you feel you've become more stupid?
My muscles were weaker until I started training. As it turns out, the modern convenience that allows me to sit around all day doesn't actually make me stronger by itself.
It is people that are increasing inequality.
Yes, what if the billionaires simply chose not to, hm? Have I ever thought of that? Probably not, I'm very stupid.
I'm very stupid.
Hard agree. Lmao.
-
That is beyond pedantry.
That is how language works. Word definitions are literally just informal consensus agreement. Dictionaries are just descriptions of observed usage. Not literally everyone needs to agree on it.
This isn't some kind of independent conclusion I came to on my own; I used to think like you appear to, but then I watched some explanations from authors and from professional linguists, and they changed my mind about language prescriptivism.If you say "AI" in most contexts, more people will know what you mean than if you say "LLM". If your goal is communication, then by that measure "AI" is "more correct" (but again, correctness isn't even applicable here)
People still know what LLMs are, and they know that it's a subset of AI. If the internet is swamped with bots actively trying to set linguistic habits for marketing reasons, you're not required to perpetuate and validate that.
Shills and goons are trying to make "AI" refer to LLMs specifically. It's an ad campaign. You're not getting paid to perpetuate this stupidity.
-
No because its not being posted by 100 different people its two people and I know they are not Pro AI and I know they hate grok. So seeing them post AI claims as news is funny to me.
Then I don't even know the point you're trying to make, but have a good one.
-
<.< The person I replied to was joking? Because it definitely doesn’t come off that way.
I was talking about how shitposting on reddit became a cesspool because people started to post actual shit takes and then claim "it's just a joke bro" when called out on it. I'm starting to see the same thing here in Lemmy; this post being an example. I'd rather this community didn't get overrun by chuds.
-
Ah I see you read a wiki article and consider yourself an expert, again.
what has it DELIVERED?
In the not-so-distant future, the authors envision
my god man, what has it delivered?
But what do I know, I’m just an aibro
yes yes that's been established.
Now they can use disposable robotic dogs to do clean up and monitoring in high radiation areas. A
now you're just lying. the robots used in fukushima aren't AI trained.
you're so fulla shit it's dripping down your beard. gonna block you now, go lie to someone else.
Whip those goalposts around a little harder.
gonna block you now,
Oh no, and you seemed like such a pleasant and respectful person.
-
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.
I have to agree here. Injecting ‘nuance’ is an easy way to derail a discussion so that the obvious harms of a thing get obscured. The discussion devolves into emotional reactions to some aspect of the ‘nuance’ and the original point is lost. And nothing changes, which suits the powers that be just fine.
Nuance is a powerful tool for maintaining the status quo by disrupting the conversation. Leave the nuance to the academics.
Effective messaging campaigns require message discipline and dead simple provocative points repeated endlessly for a generation or two to effect change, usually.
-
I mean, it is objectively bad for life. Throwing away millions to billions of gallons of water all so you can get some dubious coding advice.
Throwing away water? Does it escape into space. I completely understand the energy arguments but water?
-
Throwing away water? Does it escape into space. I completely understand the energy arguments but water?
It gets heated and then it’s unusable because the point of it is to cool things off. Some of it you can cool down and use again, by evaporation, but then you lose the amount that evaporated. When it goes back into the atmosphere it becomes polluted and you have to spend more energy cleaning it before it can be used by humans. Entropy always increases, the question is how fast you want it to increase.
-
It gets heated and then it’s unusable because the point of it is to cool things off. Some of it you can cool down and use again, by evaporation, but then you lose the amount that evaporated. When it goes back into the atmosphere it becomes polluted and you have to spend more energy cleaning it before it can be used by humans. Entropy always increases, the question is how fast you want it to increase.
Entropy always increases in closed systems. Because of the Sun, the Earth is not a closed system. If Earth were a pure entropy game, there would be no life. Also the atmosphere can't hold infinite amount of water - that's why it rains sometimes. So "using" fresh water is only a problem in regions where it doesn't rain much and/or where the water has to be prepared/cleaned im the first place (which would probably make it too expensive to cool data centers in the first place) - if the water was from a natural fresh water source than just heating it is actually not a water issue - but it will contribute to global warming, but then again the argument shouldn't be about water but about that data centers contribute to global warming.
So the amount of water is pretty much constant. And because of the huge amount of energy the Earth gets from the sun, there is plenty of opportunities for clean energy that can (and is be used) to reverse entropy. All living things reverse entropy all the time. So the issue is not using the water but the unclean energy sources that lead to global warming.
-
Entropy always increases in closed systems. Because of the Sun, the Earth is not a closed system. If Earth were a pure entropy game, there would be no life. Also the atmosphere can't hold infinite amount of water - that's why it rains sometimes. So "using" fresh water is only a problem in regions where it doesn't rain much and/or where the water has to be prepared/cleaned im the first place (which would probably make it too expensive to cool data centers in the first place) - if the water was from a natural fresh water source than just heating it is actually not a water issue - but it will contribute to global warming, but then again the argument shouldn't be about water but about that data centers contribute to global warming.
So the amount of water is pretty much constant. And because of the huge amount of energy the Earth gets from the sun, there is plenty of opportunities for clean energy that can (and is be used) to reverse entropy. All living things reverse entropy all the time. So the issue is not using the water but the unclean energy sources that lead to global warming.
Just because water is cheap doesn’t mean it’s plentiful. We under-price water, as evidenced by the massive profiteering off of public water. These prices are inelastic and don’t respond to supply perfectly.
Also life can absolutely exist in a game of entropy. You’re pulling semantics with the closed system thing. If you want, then make the closed system be the whole solar system. It doesn’t affect my argument.
Using fresh water causes energy to be spent, that’s the whole point. Yes you can recover drinkable water from anything if you spend enough energy to do it, including the ocean, but we can’t do that as a primary means of getting water. Eventually it is a snake eating its own head with the amount of energy spent to obtain more energy.
-
Just because water is cheap doesn’t mean it’s plentiful. We under-price water, as evidenced by the massive profiteering off of public water. These prices are inelastic and don’t respond to supply perfectly.
Also life can absolutely exist in a game of entropy. You’re pulling semantics with the closed system thing. If you want, then make the closed system be the whole solar system. It doesn’t affect my argument.
Using fresh water causes energy to be spent, that’s the whole point. Yes you can recover drinkable water from anything if you spend enough energy to do it, including the ocean, but we can’t do that as a primary means of getting water. Eventually it is a snake eating its own head with the amount of energy spent to obtain more energy.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Life can't exist in a high entropy environment. Of course you can declare the entire solar system a closed system but because of the sun our solar system will be in an extremely low entropy state on average for a couple of billion years. Once the sun "dies" and the temperature averages out in our solar system there will be no life.
And yes it's (almost) always an energy argument that's why the water argument is not a good one. But not everything is an energy argument. Take He and H2 for example if you let that into the air it will eventually escape our atmosphere because of solar winds and is truly wasted/lost - but that's not true for water. You can't really waste water in a sense that we will have less water im the future (unless you split it into hydrogen and oxygen and let the hydrogen escape).
-
Life can't exist in a high entropy environment. Of course you can declare the entire solar system a closed system but because of the sun our solar system will be in an extremely low entropy state on average for a couple of billion years. Once the sun "dies" and the temperature averages out in our solar system there will be no life.
And yes it's (almost) always an energy argument that's why the water argument is not a good one. But not everything is an energy argument. Take He and H2 for example if you let that into the air it will eventually escape our atmosphere because of solar winds and is truly wasted/lost - but that's not true for water. You can't really waste water in a sense that we will have less water im the future (unless you split it into hydrogen and oxygen and let the hydrogen escape).
wrote last edited by [email protected]No one said anything about a high entropy environment. Entropy is a tool for thinking about this stuff, and it extends beyond thermodynamics as entropy is an information theory concept too. The more fragmented things become, the harder they are to work with. When you use energy (or water) for an industrial use it creates fragmentation and makes that water harder to use (especially for a different use case, drinking). You can’t just pump it back into the aquifer. This is a directional thing, not about high or low in absolute numbers.
-
OK, but you're just making yourselves lolcows at this point where you announce these easy-to-push buttons & people derive joy from pushing them.
Imitating AI just to troll is a thing now.So…that's a victory?
ah yes, the people doing what they can to go against a thing they think is bad, they are the stupid dumb people
not the ones going out of their way to make fun of them and be irreverent for no reason other than "haha this person has sincere beliefs, what a moron!"
think about what your point is, how are your posts doing any sort of good?
-
Can't delete this old-ass comment because the fediverse is so free it forces me not to delete it.
Anyway, don't care, still think the root of the problem are humans, and we will ruin whatever system is in place.
Even if lemmy users want to blindly believe switching from capitalism will be the fix to every single problem. -
AI is exactly as bad as mechanised weaving looms.
you do realize mechanized looms were used to put people out of jobs and very very very clearly harm them, right? this isn't an argument in favour of AI, it's an argument against it.
