Lemmy be like
-
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.
