I work at a company that uses AI to detect repirstory ilnesses in xrays and MRI scans weeks or mobths before a human doctor could.
This work has already saved thousands of peoples lives.
But good to know you anti-AI people have your 1 dimensional, 0 nuance take on the subject and are now doing moral purity tests on it and dick measuring to see who has the loudest, most extreme hatred for AI.
And that AI has been trained on data that has been stolen, taking away the livelihood of thousands more. Further, the environmental destruction will have the capacity to destroy millions more.
I’m not lost on the benefits; it can be used to better society. However, the lack of policy around it, especially the pandering to corporations by the American judicial system, is the crux here. For me, at least.
No. Im also part of the ethics committee at my work and since we work with peoples medical data as our training sets 9/10ths of our time is about making sure that data is collected ethically and with very specific consent.
I’m fine with that. My issue is primarily theft and permissions and the way your committee is running it should be the absolute baseline of how models gather data. Keep up the great work. I hope that this practice becomes mainstream.
It’s almost like it isn’t the “training on a large data set” part that people hate about generative AI
ICBMs and rocket ships both burn fuel to send a payload to a destination. Why does NASA get to send tons of satellites to space, but I’m the asshole when I nuke Europe??? They both utiluze the same technology!
Nope, all generative AI is bad, no exceptions. Something that uses the same kind of technology but doesn’t try to imitate a human with artistic or linguistic output isn’t the kind of AI we’re talking about.
I mean, not really? Maybe they’re both deep learning neural architectures, but one has been trained on an entire internetful of stolen creative content and the other has been trained on ethically sourced medical data. That’s a pretty significant difference.
No, really. Deep learning and transformers etc. was discoveries that allowed for all of the above, just because corporate vc shitheads drag their musty balls in the latest boom abusing the piss out of it and making it uncool, does not mean the technology is a useless scam
I recently attended a congress about technology applied on healthcare.
There were works that improved diagnosis and interventions with AI, generative mainly used for synthetic data for training.
However there were also other works that left a bad aftertaste in my mouth, like replacing human interaction between the patient and a specialist with a chatbot in charge of explaining the procedure and answering questions to the patient. Some saw privacy laws as a hindrance and wanted to use any kind of private data.
Both GenAI, one that improves lives and other that improves profits.
Yeah, that’s not what I was disagreeing with. You’re right about that; I’m on record saying that capitalism is our first superintelligence and it’s already misaligned. I’m just saying that it isn’t really meaningless to object to generative AI. Sure the edges of the category are blurry, but all the LLMs and diffusion-based image generators and video generators were unethically trained on massive bodies of stolen data. Seriously, talking about AI as though the architecture is the only significant element when getting good training data is like 90% of the challenge is kind of a pet peeve of mine. And seen in that light there’s a pretty significant distinction between the AI people are objecting to and the AI people aren’t objecting to, and I don’t think it’s a matter of “a meaningless buzzword.”
I totally understand that. The pet peeve of yours, i just disagree with on a fundamental level. The data is the content, and speaking about it as if the data is the technology itself is like talking about clothes in general as being useful or not. It’s meaningless especially if you don’t know about or acknowledge the different types of apparel and their uses. It’s obviously not general knowledge but it would be like bickering about if underwear is a great idea or not, it’s totally up to the individual if they want to wear them, even if being butt naked in public is illegal. If the framework is irrelevant, then the immediate problem isn’t generative AI, especially the perfectly ethical open source models
Generative AI is a meaningless buzzword for the same underlying technology
What? An AI that can “detect repirstory ilnesses in xrays and MRI scans” is not generative. It does not generate anything. It’s a discriminative AI. Sure, the theories behind these technologies have many things is common - but I wouldn’t call them “the same underlying technology”.
Because they are both computers and you can install different (GPU-bound) software on them?
It’s true that generative AI is uses discriminative models behind the scenes, but the layer needed on top of that is enough to classify it as a different technology.
All this is being stoked by OpenAI, Anthropic and such.
They want the issue to be polarized and remove any nuance, so it’s simple: use their corporate APIs, or not. Anything else is ”dangerous.”
For what they’re really scared of is awareness of locally runnable, ethical, and independent task specific tools like yours. That doesn’t make them any money. Stirring up “fuck AI” does, because that’s a battle they know they can win.
Again with the conflation. They clearly mean GPTs and LLMs from the context they provide, they just don’t have another name for it, mostly because people like you like to pretend that AI is shit like chatGPT when it benefits you, and regular machine learning is AI when it benefits you.
And no, GPTs are not needed, nor used, as a base for most of the useful tech, because anyone with any sense in this industry knows that good models and carefully curated training data gets you more accurate, reliable results than large amounts of shit data.
I work at a company that uses AI to detect repirstory ilnesses in xrays and MRI scans weeks or mobths before a human doctor could.
This work has already saved thousands of peoples lives.
But good to know you anti-AI people have your 1 dimensional, 0 nuance take on the subject and are now doing moral purity tests on it and dick measuring to see who has the loudest, most extreme hatred for AI.
And that AI has been trained on data that has been stolen, taking away the livelihood of thousands more. Further, the environmental destruction will have the capacity to destroy millions more.
I’m not lost on the benefits; it can be used to better society. However, the lack of policy around it, especially the pandering to corporations by the American judicial system, is the crux here. For me, at least.
No. Im also part of the ethics committee at my work and since we work with peoples medical data as our training sets 9/10ths of our time is about making sure that data is collected ethically and with very specific consent.
I’m fine with that. My issue is primarily theft and permissions and the way your committee is running it should be the absolute baseline of how models gather data. Keep up the great work. I hope that this practice becomes mainstream.
nobody is trashing Visual Machine Learning to assist in medical diagnostics
cool strawman though, i like his little hat
No, when you litterally say “Fuck AI, no exceptions” you are very very expliticly covering all AI in that statement.
what do you think visual machine learning applied to medical diagnostics is exactly
does it count as “ai” if i could teach an 11th grader how to build it, because it’s essentially statistically filtering legos
don’t lose the thread sportschampion
Well most of my colleagues have PHDs or MDs, so good luck teaching an 11th grader to do it.
They’re not even people. Who knows if that story was true. They’re not conscious anymore.
Nobody has a problem with this, it’s generative AI that’s demonic
Generative AI uses the same technology. It learns when trained on a large data set.
It’s almost like it isn’t the “training on a large data set” part that people hate about generative AI
ICBMs and rocket ships both burn fuel to send a payload to a destination. Why does NASA get to send tons of satellites to space, but I’m the asshole when I nuke Europe??? They both utiluze the same technology!
So would you disagree with the OP about there being no exceptions?
Nope, all generative AI is bad, no exceptions. Something that uses the same kind of technology but doesn’t try to imitate a human with artistic or linguistic output isn’t the kind of AI we’re talking about.
Generative AI is a meaningless buzzword for the same underlying technology, as I kinda ranted on below.
Corporate enshittification is what’s demonic. When you say fuck AI, you should really mean “fuck Sam Altman”
I mean, not really? Maybe they’re both deep learning neural architectures, but one has been trained on an entire internetful of stolen creative content and the other has been trained on ethically sourced medical data. That’s a pretty significant difference.
No, really. Deep learning and transformers etc. was discoveries that allowed for all of the above, just because corporate vc shitheads drag their musty balls in the latest boom abusing the piss out of it and making it uncool, does not mean the technology is a useless scam
This.
I recently attended a congress about technology applied on healthcare.
There were works that improved diagnosis and interventions with AI, generative mainly used for synthetic data for training.
However there were also other works that left a bad aftertaste in my mouth, like replacing human interaction between the patient and a specialist with a chatbot in charge of explaining the procedure and answering questions to the patient. Some saw privacy laws as a hindrance and wanted to use any kind of private data.
Both GenAI, one that improves lives and other that improves profits.
Yeah, that’s not what I was disagreeing with. You’re right about that; I’m on record saying that capitalism is our first superintelligence and it’s already misaligned. I’m just saying that it isn’t really meaningless to object to generative AI. Sure the edges of the category are blurry, but all the LLMs and diffusion-based image generators and video generators were unethically trained on massive bodies of stolen data. Seriously, talking about AI as though the architecture is the only significant element when getting good training data is like 90% of the challenge is kind of a pet peeve of mine. And seen in that light there’s a pretty significant distinction between the AI people are objecting to and the AI people aren’t objecting to, and I don’t think it’s a matter of “a meaningless buzzword.”
I totally understand that. The pet peeve of yours, i just disagree with on a fundamental level. The data is the content, and speaking about it as if the data is the technology itself is like talking about clothes in general as being useful or not. It’s meaningless especially if you don’t know about or acknowledge the different types of apparel and their uses. It’s obviously not general knowledge but it would be like bickering about if underwear is a great idea or not, it’s totally up to the individual if they want to wear them, even if being butt naked in public is illegal. If the framework is irrelevant, then the immediate problem isn’t generative AI, especially the perfectly ethical open source models
I think DLSS/FSR/XeSS is a good example of something that is clearly ethical and also clearly generative AI. Can’t really think of many others lol
What? An AI that can “detect repirstory ilnesses in xrays and MRI scans” is not generative. It does not generate anything. It’s a discriminative AI. Sure, the theories behind these technologies have many things is common - but I wouldn’t call them “the same underlying technology”.
It is litterally the exact same technology. If i wanted to i could turn our xray product into a image generator in less than a day.
Because they are both computers and you can install different (GPU-bound) software on them?
It’s true that generative AI is uses discriminative models behind the scenes, but the layer needed on top of that is enough to classify it as a different technology.
No, I mean fuck AI. You can be included in that, if you insist.
Except clearly some people do. This post is very specifically saying ALL AI is bad and there is no exceptions.
Generative AI isnt a well defined concept and a lot of the tech we use is indistinguishable on a technical level from “Generstive AI”
sephirAmy explicitly said generative AI
Give me an example, and watch me distinguish it from the kind of generative AI sephirAmy is talking about
Again. Geneative AI is a meaningless term.
All this is being stoked by OpenAI, Anthropic and such.
They want the issue to be polarized and remove any nuance, so it’s simple: use their corporate APIs, or not. Anything else is ”dangerous.”
For what they’re really scared of is awareness of locally runnable, ethical, and independent task specific tools like yours. That doesn’t make them any money. Stirring up “fuck AI” does, because that’s a battle they know they can win.
Frfr
Those are not GPTs or LLMs. Fuck off with your bullshit trying to conflate the two.
We actually do use Generative Pre-trained Transformers as the base for a lot of our tech. So yes they are GPTs.
And even if they werent GPTs this is a post saying all AI is bad and how there is literally no exceptions to that.
Again with the conflation. They clearly mean GPTs and LLMs from the context they provide, they just don’t have another name for it, mostly because people like you like to pretend that AI is shit like chatGPT when it benefits you, and regular machine learning is AI when it benefits you.
And no, GPTs are not needed, nor used, as a base for most of the useful tech, because anyone with any sense in this industry knows that good models and carefully curated training data gets you more accurate, reliable results than large amounts of shit data.
Our whole tech stack is built off of GPTs. They are just a tool, use it badly and you grt AI slop, use it well and you can save peoples lives.
As I said, anyone with sense.