There are two different things here: there's the actual technology of LLMs, which is a huge breakthrough and an extraordinarily useful technology in many ways and regards, and then there are the shitbag Big Tech companies run by corporate billionaire tech bros who think of personal ethics as a minor inconvenience best to try to ignore. It sounds like this is the main argument people are getting upset about, and they either are unwilling to admit how impressive the technology really is / they are willfully ignorant to it on purpose and try to downplay it because of their beef elsewhere in this argument… OR they just don't understand it.
Yo I didnt say technology makes you weaker that was someone else.
True. I apologize for the misattribution.
I am only further convinced this is a shitty decision pushed ruling class.
I mean, it's free market crapitalism. You don't have to use AI if you don't want to. Sure, it's popping up here and there, but it's still pretty easy to opt out of and not use. You're so upset over this and so quick to try to condemn anyone with any viewpoint that challenges yours whatsoever. You write that person off as stupid or ill-willed and sit there 100% convinced of your self-righteous anger. Just try to see it from a different perspective for a little while to understand the other side of the argument. It won't hurt you to try.
And isn't like I"m unaffected by AI's negative points. RAM prices really are sky high, Apple just jacked all their prices, and I see so much bullshit AI slop these days it makes me want to vomit sometimes. Also, it's encroached on some of the work I do as an artist, graphic designer, and front-end code developer. My approach has been to roll with the punches and stay agile. But what do you expect to happen as a result of your complaining about AI LLMs? Do you really think anyone is going to pass legislation that will just stop AI altogether? Do you really think any of these tech giants are going to stop pursuing all matters AI right in the middle of all the action? Are CEOs at publicly traded companies going to acquire a sudden new conscience about this and do what is against shareholders' best interests and just fold AI operations, take losses for what's been invested, get punished by their competition for not adopting new technology, lose their job and forfeit their career or change career paths due to a pang of guilt over something where the ethics are not crystal clear?
So if you're like me and don't see that happening, what's the point of being so anti-AI? Do you have a solution to this? I mean, a real working solution in which everyone will be pleased? If not, you're just bitching about shit that, for all intents and purposes, no one can change. There's no point. You're just getting yourself upset.
I am reminded of when I was young and the Internet was first becoming a thing. There were people who held out, who said that the Internet was just a fad soon to go. They swore that it was an insanely BAD IDEA to order something "online". They were convinced it was all just scams and psychopaths on the Internet. It was thought back then that if you "met" someone online, that person was guaranteed to be a psychotic serial killer. At one point, some people were opposed to "talkies" in Hollywood, and went around telling everyone that audible dialogue was going to ruin movie-making. People thought automobiles were too dangerous and disruptive to society and should be banned. Imagine that. Automated textile machinery was famously opposed by the Luddites, and there were scores of people opposed to the printing press when it revolutionized the dissemination of education and information.
But if you want to live a simpler life, no one is stopping you. Another approach would be to understand that there is a balance between embracing new technologies and preserving out humanity. The two are not mutually exclusive, as history as shown and time will reveal.
Let's look at some examples of how AI benefits large portions of society…
- Healthcare ☞ AI helps analyze scans, identify drug candidates, summarize records, monitor patients, and extend basic medical guidance to underserved areas.
- Science ☞ AI processes huge datasets, predicts protein structures & materials, simulates complex systems, and helps researchers find promising hypotheses faster.
- Accessibility ☞ AI provides captions, text-to-speech, image descriptions, translation, simplified language, and assistive communication.
- Education ☞ It offers individualized explanations, tutoring, practice, feedback, and translation, although it cannot replace good teachers or reliable sources, but this limitation is wide-known.
- Productivity ☞ AI handles repetitive paperwork, scheduling, transcription, data entry, preliminary research, and routine coding, leaving people more time for judgment and creative work.
- Public safety and infrastructure ☞ AI can improve weather forecasting, disaster response, traffic management, energy efficiency, equipment maintenance, and detection of fraud or cyberattacks.
- Economic opportunity ☞ It helps small organizations and independent workers perform tasks previously affordable mainly to large institutions.
- Communication ☞ Again: the language translation alone is incredible. Plus it helps people organize & express ideas, reducing or removing barriers, and filling gaps in technical knowledge and literacy.
It's fine if you don't like Big Tech companies. I too have some grievances with them, but you're getting angry at people like me for suggesting that the technology itself is useful. I know it's useful because I've used to it in ways that are incredibly helpful, time-saving, and yes, game-changing. Don't get mad at me about it. Get angry at the right people for their business model, not new technologies or the people who use them.
A.I is a piece of baggage noone asked to carry. happy
Hey, an actual metaphor. Look at you! Lol, sorry I didn't mean to get caught up on strict definitions and shit. My bad.
Idk, I don't have a data center plopped down right next to where I live, and I imagine that would irkTF outta me. Most likely, I think I would target that company's data center practices and lean on local politicians to pass legislation preventing these data centers from operating how they operate, demanding reform and steps be taken to protect local residents more than it has. I wouldn't target the technology behind what they're doing. If it were not AI, and it was something else data driven (which I almost guarantee you it would be), the same problem would exist. So in my humble opinion, targeting the root of the problem seems more appropriate.
If "no one wants AI" is true… "no one asked to carry" the "AI baggage"… then that means there would be no demand for the it, right? And we live in a supply and demand society. Something doesn't add up, and my guess is that you're wrong. If that supply exists, it's safe to assume that there is a demand for it. I mean, you know how economics works, don't you? I'm just stating the obvious, right? I mean this in all honesty, and I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk. Try not to kill the messenger.
Yes a humanity multiplier and human nature is generally good and generous right?
Not sure if you're being sarcastic here or what… Generally I do believe in the goodness of most people. I am also aware that people are capable of mind-blowing cruelty and, for lack of a better word, evil. Idk what point you're attempting to make, bc again, whether you're being sarcastic is lost on me at the moment.
Definitely the people at the top designing it care about what is best for most of us.....
Sarcasm? The executives of large, publicly traded companies have an ethical and legal obligation to make decisions that are in the best interest of shareholders in an attempt increase owner's equity through revenue, profits, and handling of company stock. There's also a difference between ethics and morals, but that's kind of a different subject.
Anything that errs in the direction of giving an incorrect answer
Nah, it's pretty sharp. I don't usually get wrong answers, but we should be fact-checking things ourselves more frequently anyways. Only a fool lets someone else do all their homework for them. Doubly true considering how AI is excellent at teaching things. It's odd to me how people react to this phenomenon. Just my estimate, but let's say a human is right 90% of the time and an AI is right 99% of the time. People will be impressed by that human, like someone who wins at Jeopardy for five days straight, for example. No one holds it against that person when they get an answer or two wrong; I mean, they lose money from their winnings on the game, of course, but no one is like, "Oh fuck this guy. What a stupid bastard. Fuckin' degenrate nobody asked for, taking up all this prime time television air! Fuckin' Big Trivia, bro, amirite?" But despite giving you 99 beautifully explained answers, that one or two questions it got wrong a year and a half ago
proves to you that the technology should be abandoned at once…
over admitting it's unsure (or incapable of discerning whether tbings are true) makes its value incredibly low, and its tendency to create people overconfident in flawed ideas incredibly high
This is not unlike humans. I encounter people
all the time with bad intel, spreading rumors or false shit, especially concerning drugs, pharmacology, drug myths, etc. Also, how many times is the news wrong, or the weather? Think about it. And I know some people, smug and self-satisfied, will answer that with some shit like: "I don't watch the news, the media is XYZ and the weather isn't accurate!", but all that means is they get their info secondhand, and they occasionally are dressed for yesterday's weather. Meanwhile, anyone who watches, will occasionally have an umbrella or sweater they did not need.
