Need a keyboard with a dedicated "slop" button
-
If you are still looking https://frame.work/ I didn't see any ai slop button on these.
They use AI to translate the website, which is great, but the German looks awful at times.
-
Let's cook the fucking planet so we can generate stupid images we're too lazy to photoshop!
Decided to look into it, and a loose estimate (it's hard to find data on the power usage of photoshop) is that 1 minute of photoshop average is about 1 gen image at 4k output.
Which means depending on use case and experience, an AI spun up locally to make something quickly would use far less electricity
Well my iPhone 14 Pro gets really hot really quickly and the battery is comparable to a countdown app when I load a totally local LLM
-
I really don't think there is any useful generative or general AI.
So a lot of the issue is how marketing got their slimy tentacles around the word, but most "useful" AI is domain specific, symbolic ML (machine learning). Even LLMs have their uses in very specific domains, but again, general usage is very questionable.
People are already somewhat familiar with ML, but that's been kind of covered by the catch all term "algorithm". What most people understand as "the" algorithm (YouTube, Twitter, whatever) isn't a single algorithm, but a complex set of algorithms often at least partly compromised of some sort of ML.
All that to say, the general public really doesn't need to know this stuff and the serious engineers couldn't care less of our opinion of it. Fuck AI.
There is ai used for enemys and video games and some for protein folding
Thats the ones i mean with useful -
That's really the crux of this stupid argument. Is a neural network that analyzes x-rays before handing them to a doctor AI? I would say no. At this point, AI means "over hyped LLM and other generalist models." But the person trying to judge others over AI would say yes.
Is a neural network that analyzes x-rays before handing them to a doctor AI? I would say no.
The term "AI" is already pretty fuzzy even in the technical sense, but if that's how you're using it then it doesn't mean anything at all.
-
This post did not contain any content.
So when this gets posted as a post it gets hundreds of upvotes but when I say the same thing as a lemmy comment I get hate?
-
There is ai used for enemys and video games and some for protein folding
Thats the ones i mean with usefulYeah, sorry, that wasn't directed so much at you as it was using your post as a starting point.
I remember the Folding at Home program, that was more about distributed computing than AI. Game AI has been well-discussed for decades now, but in 99.9% of other AI cases it's usually in reference to the current trend (or trying to ride that wave) and like 0.1% niche nerd talk you caught a stray from.
-
You're correct in a technical sense but incorrect in a social sense. In 2025, "AI" in the common vernacular means LLMs. You can huff and puff about it, and about how there are plenty of non-LLM AIs out there. But you might as well complain that people mean silicon-based Turing-complete machines when they refer to a "computer," even though technically a computer can mean many other things. You might as well be complaining about how a computer could refer to someone that does calculations by hand for a living. Or you could refer to something like Babbage's difference engine as a computer. There are many things that can technically fall under the category of "computer." But you know damn well what people are saying when they describe a computer. And hell, in common vernacular, a smart phone isn't even a "computer," even though it literally is just a computer. Words have both technical and vernacular meanings.
In 2025, in the language real speak in the real world, "AI" is a synonym for "LLM."
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's a failure of our education systems that people don't know what a computer is, something they interact with every day.
While the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis might be bunk, I'm convinced that if you go up one level in language structure there is a version of it that is true. That is treating words as if they don't need a consistent definition melts your brain. For the same reason that explaining a problem to someone else helps you solve it, doing the opposite and untethering your thoughts from self-consistant explanations stops you from explaining them even to yourself, and therefore harms your ability to think.
I wonder if this plays some part in how ChatGPT use apparently makes people dumber, that it could be not only because they become accustomed to not having to think, but because they become conditioned to accept text that is essentially void of consistent meaning.
-
Branding something as “AI” just tells me that there probably wasn’t anybody critically examining the output to assess that it wasn’t 100% BS. If you’re using computer technology to scan bodies for possible early cancer symptoms, for example, then you should have a professional look over the computer’s results and you shouldn’t use the marketing terms that are used for churning out brainless media content.
Branding something as “AI” just tells me that there probably wasn’t anybody critically examining the output to assess that it wasn’t 100% BS.
I think those two ideas are completely unrelated. LLMs are indeed an application of AI, and whether someone assesses its output has nothing to do with what they call the tool. I mean, people can be selectively specific in the areas that matter, but it doesn't mean they're wrong or obtuse across the board.
-
Let's cook the fucking planet so we can generate stupid images we're too lazy to photoshop!
Decided to look into it, and a loose estimate (it's hard to find data on the power usage of photoshop) is that 1 minute of photoshop average is about 1 gen image at 4k output.
Which means depending on use case and experience, an AI spun up locally to make something quickly would use far less electricity
Without training I assume? (Which on top of that almost always violates liscenses)
-
This post did not contain any content.
Move over gamers, AI shills are the most discriminated group now!
-
How often do you think that this confusing actually results in people acting as described in the tweet?
Context matters, and the people who are the audience for tweets about stockfish are aware of the nuance. Outside of niche communities, "AI" without additional explicit context means LLMs for the vast vast majority of the time.
If this isn't a strawman, then it's at least a misleading argument.
Saying AI = LLMs is an severe oversimplification though. LLMs and image generators are subsets of AI that are currently most prominent and with which is most commonly knowingly being interacted with, but pretty much every formal definition is wider than that. Recommendation algorithms, as used on YouTube or social media, the smart (photo) search, are further examples of AI that people interact with. And fraud detection, learning spam filters, abnormality (failure) detection, traffic estimation are even more examples. All of these things are formally defined as AI and are very much commonplace, I would not call them niche.
The fact that LLMs and image generators are currently the most prominent examples does not necessarily exclude other examples from being part of the group too.
Using AI as a catch all phrase is simply a case of overgeneralization, in part due to the need of brevity. For some cases the difference does not matter, or is even beneficial. For example, 'don't train AI models on my art' would only marginally affect applications other than image generation and image analysis, and covers any potential future applications that may pop up.
However, statements 'ban AI' could be easily misconstrued, and may be interpreted in a much wider manner than what the original author may have intended. There will be people with a variety of definitions to what does or does not constitute AI, which will lead to miscommunication unless it is clear from context.
It probably wouldn't hurt clarifying things specifically and talking about the impact of a specific application, rather than discussing what is (or is not) to be classified as AI.
-
It's wild that OP would think these two things are equivalent.
Pronouns are a thing that harms nobody, and the people frothing at the mouth are going out of their way to hurt people who did nothing wrong.
AI (in its most common meaning at this time in pop culture) at the minimum is wasting electricity (and it's associated climate impact), and has the potential to totally decimate the job market and usher in an era of inequality that we haven't seen for hundreds of years, while simultaneously stealing from artists. The people frothing at the mouth aren't hurting anyone.
To use a bit of hyperbole, it's kinda like if you said:
Some of y'all see "white power" and freak out without processing anything that's being said, like a conservative who sees a mixed race couple.
Like pretty clearly people have a good reason for freaking out when they see that, and the other side of the equation are just bad people.
the OOP is a joke. They didn't specify if that reaction is bad in that case
-
Art can be made out of literally anything.
Such as LLMs.
Art is art because a human put their thoughts and feelings behind it.
You don't think there's any thought put into AI art by the creators?
Art is art, it doesn't matter what tool or medium was used, what matters is it reflects the artists intention or vision.
Art is art, it doesn’t matter what tool or medium was used, what matters is it reflects the artists intention or vision.
Based. Nothing triggers redditors and chuds alike than recognizing the value in all art.
-
Without training I assume? (Which on top of that almost always violates liscenses)
Without training, but once you've trained one model then that model can be used by millions.
An equivalent comparison would be the resources used by millions learning Photoshop in order to use it in the first place.
-
Yes, it’s totally okay starve millions of homes of water and jack up their utility bills to be able to summarize articles and write emails. (/s)
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me
Because you wrote your reply like a criticism, but the content seem to agree with what I wrote -
Saying AI = LLMs is an severe oversimplification though. LLMs and image generators are subsets of AI that are currently most prominent and with which is most commonly knowingly being interacted with, but pretty much every formal definition is wider than that. Recommendation algorithms, as used on YouTube or social media, the smart (photo) search, are further examples of AI that people interact with. And fraud detection, learning spam filters, abnormality (failure) detection, traffic estimation are even more examples. All of these things are formally defined as AI and are very much commonplace, I would not call them niche.
The fact that LLMs and image generators are currently the most prominent examples does not necessarily exclude other examples from being part of the group too.
Using AI as a catch all phrase is simply a case of overgeneralization, in part due to the need of brevity. For some cases the difference does not matter, or is even beneficial. For example, 'don't train AI models on my art' would only marginally affect applications other than image generation and image analysis, and covers any potential future applications that may pop up.
However, statements 'ban AI' could be easily misconstrued, and may be interpreted in a much wider manner than what the original author may have intended. There will be people with a variety of definitions to what does or does not constitute AI, which will lead to miscommunication unless it is clear from context.
It probably wouldn't hurt clarifying things specifically and talking about the impact of a specific application, rather than discussing what is (or is not) to be classified as AI.
It's like you saw my response, and processed exactly none of it before you replied.
Did I say this is how it should be? No. I was describing the way it actually is. It's not me who is oversimplify, this is just the way it is used in pop culture. It doesn't matter at all how much you don't like that, because we cannot be prescriptive about actually irl usage of a word.
Am I personally aware of the difference? Yes. I work with LLMs every day as part of my job, both as a tool and as a product.
None of this, or what you wrote, changes that in common discourse, outside of niche communities, "AI" is synonymous with "LLM" and GPT content image generators, almost exclusively, unless other context is provided.
So when people see "AI" in common discourse, they're almost always right to assume it means LLMs and GPT content generators.
-
i saw someone on masto mad about the new background removal thing added to kdenlive
i despise llms and image models for quite a number of reasons but just aaaaaaaaaaaaa
There definitely is a very real "AI derangement syndrome" kinda thing going around among some. It's like...we can be opposed to the use of AI to take away people's jobs while simultaneously dumbing down culture, without throwing out the ways it can actually be used by workers to improve their work output or the experience for them of doing the work. I'm not familiar with Kdenlive, but it sounds similar to Photoshop's generative fill, and that's a fantastic feature. Using AI to do a better version of what content-aware fill has done for over a decade. People who are opposed even to these uses need to pull their heads in, because they make it much harder to effectively oppose the real problems with AI.
-
OP in this case would be the Tumblr user sexygaywizard who made the post in the image
Usually we'd use the term "OOP" to refer to the OP of the original post in this context. Helps make it clearer.
-
Yeah, the church of anti-AI is loud, obnoxious, and obstinate.
I couldn't give a fuck less if you want to amuse yourself with scuffed images of anime girls with three tits and lobster claws. Knock yourself out.
But if you think people are going to sit politely while institutions inflict these bullshit techbro fidget spinners unto us at the cost of our humanity and the planet then you've lost the plot.
-
Art can be made out of literally anything. Trash, pieces of fabric, some chalk on a sidewalk, spray cans, arrangement of random objects, sea shells, etc. People will still love to look at shitty sketches and cute chibis and eagerly repost that art. Your medium doesn't have to be just paper and pencil, nor just an expensive digital screen and a paid paint program, but even then digital can be free. Kritia, MS Paint, Sketchbook, IbisPaint, Fossify Paint, and many more are free and easy to download on Android. Procreate is cheap and loved by many. There are people doing this shit on their phone with their finger and a lot of determination.
None of these artists started out making masterpieces, they had to take the time to get to where they are and learn. Thousands of free tutorials are online, on both YT and other social media platforms, for any kind of art medium. Years of work and practicing every day. Even for those who are making masterpieces now, they take probably days or weeks to finish off a major project, they can't just pump that shit out.
If you can't draw or photoshop images well, that's fine, as not everyone is able to do that skill. I want to learn to draw, but I can recognize that I probably don't have to time right now in my life to do that, nor will I likely be able to reach the level I dream of, and I accept that. But the moment you decide to get mad at the people opposing AI art and using AI to Photoshop, or you yourself ever use AI to do such acts, then I will gladly call you a lazy bastard. You can't have your cake without the effort that others put in to do it, and if you're doing it for commercial purposes, you should be dragged through the streets.
Art is art because a human put their thoughts and feelings behind it. It causes discussion, whether good, bad, happy, angry, etc. AI art is only amazing on the surface, "wow, we have the tech to do this" and then it stops being amazing. Either way am artist/digital designer or don't make whatever it is you wanted. Using AI to make art is embarrassing.
While we're discussing what is and isn't art, I just want to also chime in and point out that art can also be literature, or music, or dance.
