Is It Just Me?
-
This post did not contain any content.
The Luddites were right. Maybe we can learn a thing or two from them...
-
The Luddites were right. Maybe we can learn a thing or two from them...
The data centers should not be safe for much longer. Especially once they use up the water of their small towns nearby
-
It literally has no other way to judge
It literally does NOT judge. It cannot reason. It does not know what "words" are. It is an enormous rainbow table of sentence probability that does nothing useful except fool people and provide cover for capitalists to extract more profit.
But apparently, according to some on here, "that's the way it is, get used to it." FUCK no.
Markov text generator. Thats all it is. Just made with billions in stolen wages.
-
A lot of people also mix generative AI with predictive. Like they will mention the hurricane predictor or cancer cell finder AI as a "good use case for chatgpt."
Hard to blame the people, when the media have been calling everything AI these days
-
You are not correct about the energy use of prompts. They are not very energy intensive at all. Training the AI, however, is breaking the power grid.
I'm pretty sure it's a product of scale, but also, GPT5 is markedly worse. I heard estimates of 40 watt hours for a single medium length response. Napkin math says my motorcycle can travel
about kilometer per single medium length response of GPT5. Now multiply that by how many people are using AI (anyone going online these days), now multiply that by how many times a day each user causes a prompt. Now multiply that by 365 and we have how much power they're using in a year. -
uhm no I'm pretty sure op wouldn't approve judging by the:
"but you can-" I'm gonna lose it
I did not claim that the OP was saying it's sometimes useful.
-
Markov text generator. Thats all it is. Just made with billions in stolen wages.
"Information wants to be free..."
No! Not like that!!
-
This post did not contain any content.
No, it's not just you or unsat-and-strange. You're pro-human.
Trying something new when it first comes out or when you first get access to it is novelty. What we've moved to now is mass adoption. And that's a problem.
These LLMs are automation of mass theft with a good enough regurgitation of the stolen data. This is unethical for the vast majority of business applications. And good enough is insufficient in most cases, like software.
I had a lot of fun playing around with AI when it first came out. And people figured out how to do prompts I cant seem to replicate. I don't begrudge people from trying a new thing.
But if we aren't going to regulate AI or teach people how to avoid AI induced psychosis then even in applications were it could be useful it's a danger to anyone who uses it. Not to mention how wasteful its water and energy usage is.
-
People are overworked, underpaid, and struggling to make rent in this economy while juggling 3 jobs or taking care of their kids, or both.
They are at the limits of their mental load, especially women who shoulder it disproportionately in many households. AI is used to drastically reduce that mental load. People suffering from burnout use it for unlicensed therapy. I'm not advocating for it, I'm pointing out why people use it.
Treating AI users like a moral failure and disregarding their circumstances does nothing to discourage the use of AI. All you are doing is enforcing their alienation of anti-AI sentiment.
First, understand the person behind it. Address the root cause, which is that AI companies are exploiting the vulnerabilities of people with or close to burnout by selling the dream of a lightened workload.
It's like eating factory farmed meat. If you have eaten it recently, you know what horrors go into making it. Yet, you are exhausted from a long day of work and you just need a bite of that chicken to take the edge off to remain sane after all these years. There is a system at work here, greater than just you and the chicken. It's the industry as a whole exploiting consumer habits. AI users are no different.
Let's go a step further and look at why people are in burnout, are overloaded, are working 3 jobs to make ends meet.
Its because we're all slaves to capitalism.
Greed for more profit by any means possible has driven society to the point where we can barely afford to survive and corporations still want more. When most Americans are choosing between eating, their kids eating, or paying rent, while enduring the workload of two to three people, yeah they'll turn to anything that makes life easier. But it shouldn't be this way and until we're no longer slaves we'll continue to make the choices that ease our burden, even if they're extremely harmful in the long run.
-
The data centers should not be safe for much longer. Especially once they use up the water of their small towns nearby
If they told me to ration water so a company could cool a machine, I'd become a fucking terrorist.
-
People are overworked, underpaid, and struggling to make rent in this economy while juggling 3 jobs or taking care of their kids, or both.
They are at the limits of their mental load, especially women who shoulder it disproportionately in many households. AI is used to drastically reduce that mental load. People suffering from burnout use it for unlicensed therapy. I'm not advocating for it, I'm pointing out why people use it.
Treating AI users like a moral failure and disregarding their circumstances does nothing to discourage the use of AI. All you are doing is enforcing their alienation of anti-AI sentiment.
First, understand the person behind it. Address the root cause, which is that AI companies are exploiting the vulnerabilities of people with or close to burnout by selling the dream of a lightened workload.
It's like eating factory farmed meat. If you have eaten it recently, you know what horrors go into making it. Yet, you are exhausted from a long day of work and you just need a bite of that chicken to take the edge off to remain sane after all these years. There is a system at work here, greater than just you and the chicken. It's the industry as a whole exploiting consumer habits. AI users are no different.
We shouldn't accuse people of moral failings. That's inaccurate and obfuscates the actual systemic issues and incentives at play.
But people using this for unlicensed therapy are in danger. More often than not LLMs will parrot whatever you give in the prompt.
People have died from AI usage including unlicensed therapy. This would be like the factory farmed meat eating you.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/woman-dies-suicide-using-ai-172040677.html
-
If plastic was released roughly two years ago you'd have a point.
If you're saying in 50 years we'll all be soaking in this bullshit called gen-AI and thinking it's normal, well - maybe, but that's going to be some bleak-ass shit.
Also you've got plastic in your gonads.
If you're saying in 50 years we'll all be soaking in this bullshit called gen-AI and thinking it's normal, well - maybe, but that's going to be some bleak-ass shit.
I'm almost certain gen AI will still be popular in 50 years. This is why I prefer people try to tackle some of the problems they see with AI instead of just hating on AI because of the problems it currently has. Don't get me wrong, pointing out the problems as you have is important - I just wouldn't jump to the conclusion that AI is a problem itself.
-
My hope is that the ai bubble/trend might have a silver lining overall.
I’m hoping that people start realizing that it is often confidently incorrect. That while it makes some tasks faster, a person will still need to vet the answers.
Here’s the stretch. My hope is that by questioning and researching to verify the answers ai is giving them, people start applying this same skepticism to their daily lives to help filter out all the noise and false information that is getting shoved down their throats every minute of every day.
So that the populace in general can become more resistant to the propaganda. AI would effectively be a vaccine to boost our herd immunity to BS.
Like I said. It’s a hope.
We should encourage people to do the vetting if they insist on using AI.
-
No, it's not just you or unsat-and-strange. You're pro-human.
Trying something new when it first comes out or when you first get access to it is novelty. What we've moved to now is mass adoption. And that's a problem.
These LLMs are automation of mass theft with a good enough regurgitation of the stolen data. This is unethical for the vast majority of business applications. And good enough is insufficient in most cases, like software.
I had a lot of fun playing around with AI when it first came out. And people figured out how to do prompts I cant seem to replicate. I don't begrudge people from trying a new thing.
But if we aren't going to regulate AI or teach people how to avoid AI induced psychosis then even in applications were it could be useful it's a danger to anyone who uses it. Not to mention how wasteful its water and energy usage is.
Regulate? This is what lead AI companies are pushing for, they would pass the bureaucracy but not the competitors.
The shit just needs to be forced to opensource. If you steal the content from entire world to build a thinking machine - give back to the world.
This would also crash the bubble and would slow down any of the most unethical for-profits.
-
I have a love/ hate relationship. Sometimes I'm absolutely blown away by what it can do. But then I asked a compounded interest question. The first answer was AI, so I figured ok, why not. I should mention I don't know much about it. The answer was impressive. It gave the result, a brief explanation about how it came to the result and presented me with the equation it used. Since I needed it for all time sake, I entered the equation into a spreadsheet and got what I thought was the wrong answer. I spent quite a few minutes trying to figure out what I was doing wrong and found a couple of things. But fixing them still didn't give me the correct result. After I had convinced myself I had done it correctly I looked up the equation. It was the right one. Then I put it into a non-AI calculator online to check my work. Sure enough, the AI had given me the wrong result with the right equation. So be rule, never accept the AI answer with verifying it. But you know what, if you have to verify it, what's the point of using it in the first place? You just have to do the same work as you would without it.
LLM aren't good at math at all. They know the formulas, but they aren't built to do math. They are built to predict the next syllable in the stream of thought.
What are they good for? When you need to generate lots of things and it's faster to check after it rather than do it yourself.
Like you could've asked to generate a python app that solves your math problem, you would be able to doublecheck the correctness of the code and run it, knowing that the answer is predictably good.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's a tool being used by humans.
It's not making anyone dumber or smarter.
I'm so tired of this anti ai bullshit.
Ai was used in the development of the COVID vaccine. It was crucial in its creation.
But just for a second let's use guns as an example instead of ai. Guns kill people. Lemmy is anti gun, mostly. Yet Lemmy is pro Ukraine, mostly, and y'all supports the Ukrainians using guns to defend themselves.
Or cars, generally cars suck yet we use them as transport.
These are just tools they're as good and as bad as the people using them.
So yes, it is just you and a select few smooth brains that can't see past their own bias.
-
It's a tool being used by humans.
It's not making anyone dumber or smarter.
I'm so tired of this anti ai bullshit.
Ai was used in the development of the COVID vaccine. It was crucial in its creation.
But just for a second let's use guns as an example instead of ai. Guns kill people. Lemmy is anti gun, mostly. Yet Lemmy is pro Ukraine, mostly, and y'all supports the Ukrainians using guns to defend themselves.
Or cars, generally cars suck yet we use them as transport.
These are just tools they're as good and as bad as the people using them.
So yes, it is just you and a select few smooth brains that can't see past their own bias.
I agree completely.
-
It's a tool being used by humans.
It's not making anyone dumber or smarter.
I'm so tired of this anti ai bullshit.
Ai was used in the development of the COVID vaccine. It was crucial in its creation.
But just for a second let's use guns as an example instead of ai. Guns kill people. Lemmy is anti gun, mostly. Yet Lemmy is pro Ukraine, mostly, and y'all supports the Ukrainians using guns to defend themselves.
Or cars, generally cars suck yet we use them as transport.
These are just tools they're as good and as bad as the people using them.
So yes, it is just you and a select few smooth brains that can't see past their own bias.
"I was looking for my high school yearbook photo and Google Image didn't have it! Google Image search doesn't work and no one should use it!"
"I was trying to find a voicemail message from my late father on Spotify and I couldn't find it! Spotify is useless!"
"I went to the dollar store to shop for low cost health care coverage and they didn't have any! The dollar store is bad and no one should use it!"
-
Regulate? This is what lead AI companies are pushing for, they would pass the bureaucracy but not the competitors.
The shit just needs to be forced to opensource. If you steal the content from entire world to build a thinking machine - give back to the world.
This would also crash the bubble and would slow down any of the most unethical for-profits.
Regulate? This is what lead AI companies are pushing for, they would pass the bureaucracy but not the competitors.
I was referring to this in my comment:
Congress decided to not go through with the AI-law moratorium. Instead they opted to do nothing, which is what AI companies would prefer states would do. Not to mention the pro-AI argument appeals to the judgement of Putin, notorious for being surrounded by yes-men and his own state propaganda. And the genocide of Ukrainians in pursuit of the conquest of Europe.
“There’s growing recognition that the current patchwork approach to regulating AI isn’t working and will continue to worsen if we stay on this path,” OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, Chris Lehane, wrote on LinkedIn. “While not someone I’d typically quote, Vladimir Putin has said that whoever prevails will determine the direction of the world going forward.”
The shit just needs to be forced to opensource. If you steal the content from entire world to build a thinking machine - give back to the world.
The problem is unlike Robin Hood, AI stole from the people and gave to the rich. The intellectual property of artists and writers were stolen and the only way to give it back is to compensate them, which is currently unlikely to happen. Letting everyone see how the theft machine works under the hood doesn't provide compensation for the usage of that intellectual property.
This would also crash the bubble and would slow down any of the most unethical for-profits.
Not really. It would let more people get it on it. And most tech companies are already in on it. This wouldn't impose any costs on AI development. At this point the speculation is primarily on what comes next. If open source would burst the bubble it would have happened when DeepSeek was released. We're still talking about the bubble bursting in the future so that clearly didn't happen.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I try use it to pitch ideas for writing (no prose because fuck almighty) to help fill in ideas or aspects I did not think about. But it just keeps coming up with shit I don't use and so I just use it for validation and encouragement.
I got a pretty good layout for a new season of Magic School Bus where Friz loses her mind and decides to be the history teacher.
