You must log in or register to comment.
Wow i’m sure this comment section is full of respectful and constructive discussion /s. Lemme go pop some popcorn.
Lots of AI is technologically interesting and has tons of potential, but this kind of chatbot and image/video generation stuff we got now is just dumb.
I firmly believe we won’t get most of the interesting, “good” AI until after this current AI bubble bursts and goes down in flames. Once AI hardware is cheap interesting people will use it to make cool things. But right now, the big players in the space are drowning out anyone who might do real AI work that has potential, by throwing more and more hardware and money at LLMs and generative AI models because they don’t understand the technology and see it as a way to get rich and powerful quickly.
True. Now shut up and take my upvote! Jo need for arguments; all has already been said.
Why is the other arrow also pointing up?
Because I used AI slop to create this shitpost lol. So naturally it would make mistake.
There are other mistakes in the image too
You used AI to make a stickfigure comic? Damn.
I mostly used it for irony, this is a shitpost after all and to make the orange arrow blue. But it messed some other things up along the way. Happy accidents
Not all AI is bad. But there’s enough widespread AI that’s helping cut jobs, spreading misinformation (or in some cases, actual propaganda), creating deepfakes, etc, that in many people’s eyes, it paints a bad picture of AI overall. I also don’t trust AI because it’s almost exclusively owned by far right billionaires.
Lots of pro AI astroturfing and whataboutisms in these comments… 🤢
Do you really need to have a list of why people are sick of LLM and Ai slop?
Ai is literally making people dumber:
https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/18/is_ai_changing_our_brains/
They are a massive privacy risk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyH7zoP-JOg&t=3015s
Are being used to push fascist ideologies into every aspect of the internet:
https://newsocialist.org.uk/transmissions/ai-the-new-aesthetics-of-fascism/
And they are a massive environmental disaster:
https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117
Stop being a corporate apologist and stop wreaking the environment with this shit technology.
Do you really need to have a list of why people are sick of LLM and Ai slop?
With the number of times that refrain is regurgitated here ad nauseum, need is an odd way to put it. Sick of it might fit sentiments better. Done with this & not giving a shit is another.
This can be called not a technology, but a weapon for killing in my opinion.
If you ever take a flight for holiday, or even drive long distance and cry about AI being bad for the environment then you’re a hypocrite.
Same goes for if you eat beef, or having a really powerful gaming rig that you use a lot.
There are plenty of valid reasons AI is bad, but the argument for the environment seems weak, and most people using it are probably hypocrites. It’s barely a drop in the bucket compared to other things
Texas has just asked residents to take less showers while datacenters made specifically for LLM training continue operating.
This is more like feeling bad for not using a paper straw while local factory dumps all their oil change into the community river.
Ahh so are you going to acknowledge the privacy invasion and brain rotting cause by Ai or are you just going to focus on dismissing the environmental concerns? Cause I linked more than just the environmental impacts.
Uh dismissing that concern seems like valid point? Do people have to comprehensively discredit the whole list to reply?
This echo chamber isn’t ready for this logical discussion yet unfortunately lol
When someone disagrees with me - echo chamber.
When someone agrees with me - logical discussion.
You’re getting downvoted for speaking the truth to an echo chamber my guy.
But he isn’t speaking the truth. AI itself is a massive strain on the environment, without any true benefit. You are being fed hype and lies by con men. Data centers being built to supply AIs are using water and electricity at alarming rates, taking away the resources from actual people living nearby, and raising the cost of those utilities at the same time.
https://www.realtor.com/advice/finance/ai-data-centers-homeowner-electric-bills-link/
The same can be said for taking flights to go on holiday.
Flying emits way exponentially more CO2 and supports the oil industry
This is valid to all data centers serving all websites. Your take is a criticism of unregulated capitalism, not AI.
Beef farming is a far far far more impactful discussion, yet here we are.
Ai takes far more power to serve a single request than a website does though.
And remember, AI requires those websites too, for training data.
So it’s not just more power hungry, it also has thw initial power consumption added on top
And your car or flight is a massive strain on the environment. I think you’re missing the point. There’s a way to use tools responsibly. We’ve taken the chains off and that’s obviously a problem but the AI hate here is irrational
The problem is the companies building the data centers; they would be just as happy to waste the water and resources mining crypto or hosting cloud gaming, if not for AI it would be something else.
In China they’re able to run DeepSeek without any water waste, because they cool the data centers with the ocean. DeepSeek also uses a fraction of the energy per query and is investing in solar and other renewables for energy.
AI is certainly an environmental issue, but it’s only the most recent head of the big tech hydra.
AI uses 1/1000 the power of a microwave.
Are you really sure you aren’t the one being fed lies by con men?
What? Elon Musk’s xAI data center in Tennessee (when fully expanded & operational) will need 2 GW of energy. That’s as much as some entire cities use in a year.
Hi. I’m in charge of an IT firm that is been contracted to carry out one of these data centers somewhat unwillingly in our city. We are currently in the groundbreaking phase but I am looking at papers and power requirements. You are absolutely wrong on the power requirements unless you mean per query on a light load on an easy plan, but these will be handling millions if not billions of queries per day. Keeping in mind that a single user query can also be dozens, hundreds, or thousands of separate queries… Generating a single image is dramatically more than you are stating.
Edit: I don’t think your statement addresses the amount of water it requires as well. There are serious concerns that our massive water reservoir and lake near where I live will not even be close to enough.
Edit 2: Also, we were told to spec for at least 10x growth within the next 5 years which, unless there are massive gains in efficiency, I don’t think there are any places on the planet capable of meeting the needs of, even if the models become substantially more efficient.
Do you really think those data centers wouldn’t have been built if AI didn’t exist? Do you really think those municipalities would have turned down the same amount of money if it was for something else but equally destructive?
What I’m hearing is you’re sick of municipal governance being in bed with big business. That you’re sick of big business being allowed to skirt environmental regulations.
But sure. Keep screaming at AI. I’m sure the inanimate machine will feel really bad about it.
Hypocrisy can be called the primitive nature of man who chooses what is easier because he is designed that way. Human is like a cancerous tumor for the planet.
The problem isn’t AI. The problem is Capitalism.
The problem is always Capitalism.
AI, Climate Change, rising fascism, all our problems are because of capitalism.
Wrong.
The problem are humans, the same things that happen under capitalism can (and would) happen under any other system because humans are the ones who make these things happen or allow them to happen.Problems would exist in any system, but not the same problems. Each system has its set of problems and challenges. Just look at history, problems change. Of course you can find analogies between problems, but their nature changes with our systems. Hunger, child mortality, pollution, having no free time, war, censorship, mass surveilence,… these are not constant through history. They happen more or less depending on the social systems in place, which vary constantly.
While you aren’t wrong about human nature. I’d say you’re wrong about systems. How would the same thing happen under an anarchist system? Or under an actual communist (not Marxist-Leninist) system? Which account for human nature and focus to use it against itself.
I’ll answer. Because some people see these systems as “good” regardless of political affiliation and want them furthered and see any cost as worth it. If an anarchist / communist sees these systems in a positive light, then they will absolutely try and use them at scale. These people absolutely exist and you could find many examples of them on Lemmy. Try DB0.
And the point of anarchist or actual communist systems is that such scale would be miniscule. Not massive national or unanswerable state scales.
And yes, I’m an anarchist. I know DB0 and their instance and generally agree with their stance - because it would allow any one of us to effectively advocate against it if we desired to.
There would be no tech broligarchy forcing things on anyone. They’d likely all be hanged long ago. And no one would miss them as they provide nothing of real value anyway.
It will happen regardless because we are not machines, we don’t follow theory, laws, instructions or whatever a system tells us to perfectly and without little changes here and there.
I think you are underestimating how adaptable humans are. We absolutely conform to the systems that govern us, and they are NOT equally likely to produce bad outcomes.
Every system eventually ends with someone corrupted with power and greed wanting more. Putin and his oligrachs, Trump and his oligarchs… Xi isn’t great, but at least I haven’t heard news about the Uyghurs situation for a couple of years now. Hope things are better there nowadays and people aren’t going missing anymore just for speaking out against their government.
I see, so you don’t understand. Or simply refuse to engage with what was asked.
Can, would… and did. The list of environmental disasters in the Soviet is long and intense.
Rather, our problem is that we live in a world where the strongest will survive, and the strongest does not mean the smart… So alas we will always be in complete shit until we disappear.
That’s a pathetic, defeatist world view. Yeah, we’re victims of our circumstances, but we can make the world a better place than what we were raised in.
You can try, and you should try. But some handful of generations ago, some assholes were in the right place at the right time and struck it rich. The ones that figured out generational wealth ended up with a disproportionate amount of power. The formula to use money to make more money was handed down, coddled, and protected to keep the rich and powerful in power. Even 100 Luigi’s wouldn’t even make the tiniest dent in the oligarch pyramid as others will just swoop in and consume their part.
Any lifelong pursuit you have to make the world a better place than you were raised in will be wiped out with a scribble of black Sharpie on Ministry of Truth letterhead.
Well, you can believe that there is a chance, but there is none. It can only be created with sweat and blood. There are no easy ways, you know, and sometimes there are none at all, and sometimes even creating one seems like a miracle.
Its true. We can have a nuanced view. Im just so fucking sick of the paid off media hyping this shit, and normies thinking its the best thing ever when they know NOTHING about it. And the absolute blind trust and corpo worship make me physically ill.
Nuance is the thing.
Thinking AI is the devil, will kill your grandma and shit in your shoes is equally as dumb as thinking AI is the solution to any problem, will take over the world and become our overlord.
The truth is, like always, somewhere in between.
AI is bad and people who use it should feel bad.
So cancer cell detection is now bad and those doing it should feel bad?
The world isn’t black’n white.
Don’t be obtuse, you walnut. I’m obviously not equating medical technology with 12-fingered anime girls and plagiarism.
You mean a subset of LLM that are trained on bad human behaviours
When people say this they are usually talking about a very specific sort of generative LLM using unsupervised learning.
AI is a very broad field with great potential, the improvements in cancer screening alone could save millions of lives over the coming decades. At the core it’s just math, and the equations have been in use for almost as long as we’ve had computers. It’s no more good or bad than calculus or trigonometry.
No hope commenting like this, just get ready getting downvoted with no reason. People use wrong terms and normalize it.
It’s funny watching you AI bros climb over each other to be the first with a what about-ism.
Would love an explanation on how I’m in the wrong on reducing my work week from 40 hours to 15 using AI.
Existing in predatory capitalistic system and putting the blame on those who utilize available tools to reduce the predatory nature of our system is insane.
So is eating meat, flying, gaming, going om holiday, basically if you exist you should feel bad
How does one feel bar?
“B-But you don’t understand, AI DESTROYS le epic self employed artists and their bottom line! Art is a sacred thing that we all do for fun and not for work, therefore AI that automates the process is EVIL!”
- Actual thought process of some people
AI does do this to a subsection. Claiming that everyone is overreacting is just as stupid and lacks the same amount of nuance as claiming AI is going to ruin all self employed artists.
Also this ignores AI companies stealing blatnatly copyrighted material to feed their AI. As an artist I rather not have some randoms steal my stuff so some mid-tier corporation can generate their logos and advertisements without paying for it
Not claiming that everyone is overreacting, but how stupid a lot of anti-AI arguments are. Artists drawing art for a living gets painted not as a job, but as some sort of a fun recreational activity ignoring that artists have to do commissions or draw whatever’s popular with their fan base that pays their bills via patreon, which in other words is the process of commodifying oneself aka work.
Also this ignores AI companies stealing blatnatly copyrighted material to feed their AI.
Not saying that you’re necessarily one of those people, but this argument often pops up in leftist spaces who previously were anti-IP, which is a bit hypocritical. One moment people are against intellectual property, calling it abusable, restrictive, etc, but once small artists start getting attacked then the concept has to be defended.
As an artist
womp womp you’ll have to get a real job now /s
Um, have you tried practicing? Just draw a stick figure or hire an artist, this will easily solve all of your problems. You’re welcome.
I don’t hate the concept as is, I hate how it is being marketed and shoved everywhere and into everything by sheer hype and the need for returns on the absurd amounts of money that were thrown at it.
Companies use it to justify layoffs, create cheap vibed up products, delegate responsibilities to an absolutely not sentient or intelligent computer program. Not even mentioning the colossal amount of natural and financial resources being thrown down this drain.
I read a great summary yesterday somewhere on here that essentially said “they took a type of computer model made to give answers to very specific questions it has been trained on, and then trained it on everything to make a generalist”. Except that doesn’t work, the broader the spectrum the model is covering the less accurate it will be.
Identifying skin cancer? Perfect tool for the job.
Giving drones the go ahead on an ambiguous target? Providing psychological care to people in distress? FUCK NO.
And here the question is: should we laugh out of despair or just cry?
Now see, I like the idea of AI.
What I don’t like are the implications, and the current reality of AI.
I see businesses embracing AI without fully understanding the limits. Stopping the hiring juniors developers, often firing large numbers of seniors because they think AI, a group of cheap post grad vibe programmers and a handful of seasoned seniors will equal the workforce they got rid of when AI, while very good is not ready to sustain this. It is destroying the career progression for the industry and even if/when they realise it was a mistake, it might already have devastated the industry by then.
I see the large tech companies tearing through the web illegally sucking up anything they can access to pull into their ever more costly models with zero regard to the effects on the economy, the cost to the servers they are hitting, or the environment from the huge power draw creating these models requires.
It’s a nice idea, but private business cannot be trusted to do this right, we’re seeing how to do it wrong, live before our eyes.
i see a silver lining.
i love IT but hate IT jobs, here’s hoping techbros just fucking destroy themselves…
And the whole AI industry is holding up the stock market, while AI has historically always ran the hype cycle and crashed into an AI winter. Stock markets do crash after billions pumped into a sector suddenly turn out to be not worth as much. Almost none of these AI companies run a profit and don’t have any prospect of becoming profitable. It’s when everybody starts yelling that this time it’s different that things really become dangerous.
Yep, exactly.
They knew the housing/real estate bubble would pop, as it currently is…
… So, they made one final last gambit on AI as the final bubble that would magically become super intelligent and solve literally all problems.
This would never, and is not working, because the underlying tech of LLM has no real actual mechanism by which it would or could develop complex, critical, logical analysis / theoretization / metacognition that isn’t just a schizophrenic mania episode.
LLMs are fancy, inefficient autocomplete algos.
Thats it.
They achieve a simulation of knowledge via consensus, not analytic review.
They can never be more intelligent than an average human with access to all the data they’ve … mostly illegally stolen.
The entire bet was ‘maybe superintelligence will somehow be an emergent property, just give 8t more data and compute power’.
And then they did that, and it didn’t work.
I agree with everything you said, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be very useful in many fields.
I mean, I also agree with that, lol.
There absolutely are valid use cases for this kind of ‘AI’.
But it is very, very far from the universal panacea that the capital class seems to think it is.
When all the hype dies down, we will see where it’s actually useful. But I can bet you it will have uses, it’s been very helpful in making certain aspects of my life a lot easier. And I know many who say the same.
That too is the classical hype cycle. After the trough of disillusionment, and that’s going to be a deep one from the look of things, people figure out where it can be used in a profitable way in its own niches.
… Unless its mass proliferation of shitty broken code and mis/disinformation and hyperparasocial relationships and waste of energy and water are actually such a net negative that it fundamentally undermines infrastructure and society, thus raising the necessary profit margin too high for such legit use cases to be workable in a now broken economic system.
Time will tell how much was just hype, and how much actually had merit. I think it will go the way of the
.combubble.LOTS of uses for the internet of things, but it’s still overhyped
The .com bubble had nothing to do with the Internet of Things.
Fair enough.
The dot-com bubble (late 1990s–2000) was when investors massively overvalued internet-related companies just because they had “.com” in their name, even if they had no profits or solid business plans. It burst in 2000, wiping out trillions in value.
The “Internet hype” bubble popped. But the Internet still has many valid uses.
It’s a nice idea, but private business cannot be trusted to do this right, we’re seeing how to do it wrong, live before our eyes.
You’re right. It’s the business model driving technological advancement in the 21st century that’s flawed.
I have to disagree that it’s even a nice idea. The “idea” behind AI appears to be wanting a machine that thinks or works for you with (at least) the intelligence of a human being and no will or desires of its own. At its root, this is the same drive behind chattel slavery, which leads to a pretty inescapable conundrum: either AI is illusory marketing BS or it’s the rebirth of one of the worst atrocities history has ever seen. Personally, hard pass on either one.
I 100% agree with you
Yeah it is bad
It’s actually a real problem
How dare you?
I personally think of AI as a tool, what matters is how you use it. I like to think of it like a hammer. You could use a hammer to build a house, or you could smash someone’s skull in with it. But no one’s putting the hammer in jail.
deleted by creator
Yeah, except it’s a tool that most people don’t know how to use but everyone can use, leading to environmental harm, a rapid loss of media literacy, and a huge increase in wealth inequality due to turmoil in the job market.
So… It’s not a good tool for the average layperson to be using.
Stop drinking the cool aid bro. Think of these statements critically for a second. Environmental harm? Sure. I hope you’re a vegan as well.
Loss of media literacy: What does this even mean? People are doing things the easy way instead of the hard way? Yes, of course cutting corners is bad, but the problem is the conditions that lead to that person choosing to cut corners, the problem is the demand for maximum efficiency at any cost, for top numbers. AI is is making a problem evident, not causing it. If you’re home on a Friday after your second shift of the day, fuck yeah you want to do things easy and fast. Literacy what? Just let me watch something funny.
Do you feel you’ve become more stupid? Do you think it’s possible? Why wouild other people, who are just like you, be these puppets to be brain washed by the evil machine?
Ask yourself. How are people measuring intelligence? Creativity? How many people were in these studies and who funded them? If we had the measuring instrument needed to actually make categorizations like “People are losing intelligence.” Psychologists wouldn’t still be arguing over the exact definition of intelligence.
Stop thinking of AI as a boogieman inside people’s heads. It is a machine. People using the machine to achieve a mundane goal, it doesn’t mean the machine created the goal or is responsible for everything wrong with humanity.
Huge increase in inequality? What? Brother AI is a machine. It is the robber barons that are exploiting you and all of the working class to get obsenely rich. AI is the tool they’re using. AI can’t be held accountable. AI has no will. AI is a tool. It is people that are increasing inequality. It is the system held in place by these people that rewards exploitation and encourages to look at the evil machine instead. And don’t even use it, the less you know, the better. If you never engage with AI technology, you’ll believe everything I say about how evil it is.
A hammer doesn’t consume exorbitant amounts of power and water.
What about self hosting? I can run a local GenAI on my gaming PC with relative ease. This isn’t consuming mass amounts of power.
Do you think hammers grow out of the ground? Or that the magically spawn the building materials to work on?
Everything we do has a cost. We should definitely strive for efficiency and responsibile use of resources. But to use this as an excuse, while you read this in a device made of metals mined by children, is pretty hypocritical.
No consumption is ehical under capitalism, take responsibility instead for what you do with that consumption.
Neither does an algorithm.
No, it actually does.
https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117
The algorithm is a bunch of math. It’s not until someone wants to run it that it needs any energy.
No shit, chumly. How many times a second do you think that math is “run”?
Many.
Seriously, the AI hate gets old fast. Like you said it’s a tool,
geyget over it people.gey over it
👁️👄👁️🤖 🏳️🌈
Edited. That’s what I get for trying to type fast while my dog is heading for the door after doing her business.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”
Edit:
Controversial reply, apparently, but this is literally part of the script to a Philosophy Tube video (relevant part is 8:40 - 20:10)
We sometimes think that technology is essentially neutral. It can have good or bad effects, and it might be really important who controls it. But a tool, many people like to think, is just a tool. “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But some philosophers have argued that technology can have values built into it that we may not realise.
…
The philosopher Don Idhe says tech can open or close possibilities. It’s not just about its function or who controls it. He says technology can provide a framework for action.
…
Martin Heidegger was a student of Husserl’s, and he wrote about the ways that we experience the world when we use a piece of technology. His most famous example was a hammer. He said when you use one you don’t even think about the hammer. You focus on the nail. The hammer almost disappears in your experience. And you just focus on the task that needs to be performed.
Another example might be a keyboard. Once you get proficient at typing, you almost stop experiencing the keyboard. Instead, your primary experience is just of the words that you’re typing on the screen. It’s only when it breaks or it doesn’t do what we want it to do, that it really becomes visible as a piece of technology. The rest of the time it’s just the medium through which we experience the world.
Heidegger talks about technology withdrawing from our attention. Others say that technology becomes transparent. We don’t experience it. We experience the world through it. Heidegger says that technology comes with its own way of seeing.
…
Now some of you are looking at me like “Bull sh*t. A person using a hammer is just a person using a hammer!” But there might actually be some evidence from neurology to support this.
If you give a monkey a rake that it has to use to reach a piece of food, then the neurons in its brain that fire when there’s a visual stimulus near its hand start firing when there’s a stimulus near the end of the rake, too! The monkey’s brain extends its sense of the monkey body to include the tool!
And now here’s the final step. The philosopher Bruno Latour says that when this happens, when the technology becomes transparent enough to get incorporated into our sense of self and our experience of the world, a new compound entity is formed.
A person using a hammer is actually a new subject with its own way of seeing - ‘hammerman.’ That’s how technology provides a framework for action and being. Rake + monkey = rakemonkey. Makeup + girl is makeupgirl, and makeupgirl experiences the world differently, has a different kind of subjectivity because the tech lends us its way of seeing.
You think guns don’t kill people, people do? Well, gun + man creates a new entity with new possibilities for experience and action - gunman!
So if we’re onto something here with this idea that tech can withdraw from our attention and in so doing create new subjects with new ways of seeing, then it makes sense to ask when a new piece of technology comes along, what kind of people will this turn us into.
I thought that we were pretty solidly past the idea that anything is “just a tool” after seeing Twitler scramble Grok’s innards to advance his personal politics.
Like, if you still had any lingering belief that AI is “like a hammer”, that really should’ve extinguished it.
But I guess some people see that as an aberrant misuse of AI, and not an indication that all AI has an agenda baked into it, even if it’s more subtle.
Guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people.
Ftfy
as an aussie, yeah, then you should stop people from having guns
i honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the total number of gun deaths in australia since we banned guns (1996) was less than the number of gun deaths in the US THIS WEEK
the reason is irrelevant: the cause is obvious… and id have bought the “to stop a tyrannical government” argument a few years ago, but ffs there’s all the kids dying in school and none of the stop the tyrant, so maybe that’s a fucking awful argument and we have it right down under
I’ve never understood how a redneck prepper thinks he’s going to protect himself with a bunch of guns from a government that has millions of soldiers, tanks, machine guns, sidewinder misses and nuclear weapons.
Secure your guns. Toddlers kill an insane number of people. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/
Hey, that level of pedantry is my job
Bad faith comparison.
The reason we can argue for banning guns and not hammers is specifically because guns are meant to hurt people. That’s literally their only use. Hammers have a variety of uses and hurting people is definitely not the primary one.
AI is a tool, not a weapon. This is kind of melodramatic.
GenAI is a bad tool that does bad things in bad ways.
then you have little understanding of how genai works… the social impact of genai is horrific, but to argue the tool is wholly bad conveys a complete or purposeful misunderstanding of context
I’m not an expert in AI systems, but here is my current thinkging:
Insofar as ‘GenAI’ is defined as
AI systems that can generate new content, including text, images, audio, and video, in response to prompts or inputs
I think this is genuinely bad tech. In my analysis, there are no good use cases for automating this kind of creative activity in the way that the current technology works. I do not mean that all machine assisted generation of content is bad, but just the current tech we are calling GenAI, which is of the nature of “stochastic parrots”.
I do not think every application of ML is trash. E.g., AI systems like AlphaFold are clearly valuable and important, and in general the application of deep learning to solve particular problems in limited domains is valuable
Also, if we first have a genuinely sapient AI, then it’s creation would be of a different kind, and I think it would not be inherently degenerative. But that is not the technology under discussion. Applications of symbolic AI to assist in exploring problem spaces, or ML to solve classification problems also seems genuinely useful.
But, indeed, all the current tech that falls under GenAI is genuinely bad, IMO.
GenAI is a great tool for devouring text and making practice questions, study guides and summarize, it has been used as a marvelous tool for education and research. Hell, if set properly, you can get it to give you the references and markers on your original data for where to find the answers to the questions on the study guide it made you.
It is also really good for translation and simplification of complex text. It has its uses.
But the oversimplification and massive broad specs LLMs have taken, plus lack of proper training for the users, are part of the problem Capitalism is capitalizing on. They don’t care for the consumer’s best interest, they just care for a few extra pennies, even if those are coated in the blood of the innocent. But a lot of people just foam at the mouth when they hear “Ai”.
Those are not valuable use cases. “Devouring text” and generating images is not something that benefits from automation. Nor is summarization of text. These do not add value to human life and they don’t improve productivity. They are a complete red herring.
Who talked about image generation? That one is pretty much useless, for anything that needs to be generated on the fly like that, a stick figure would do.
Devouring text like that, has been instrumental in learning for my students, especially for the ones who have English as a Second Language(ESL), so its usability in teaching would be interesting to discuss.
Do I think general open LLMs are the future? Fuck no. Do I think they are useless and unjustifiable? Neither. I think, at their current state, they are a brilliant beta test on the dangers and virtues of large language models and how they interact with the human psyche, and how they can help bridge the gap in understanding, and how they can help minorities, especially immigrants and other oppressed groups(Hence why I advocated for providing a class on how to use it appropriately for my ESL students) bridge gaps in understanding, help them realize their potential, and have a better future.
However, we need to solve or at least reduce the grip Capitalism has on that technology. As long as it is fueled by Capitalism, enshitification, dark patterns and many other evils will strip it of its virtues, and sell them for parts.
“Video games are dangerous.”
So is rock music! And if you inject one Marijuana you can die!
My skull-crushing hammer that is made to crush skulls and nothing else doesn’t crush skulls, people crush skulls
In fact, if more people had skull-crushing hammers in their homes, i’m sure that would lead to a reduction in the number of skull-crushings, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a skull-crushing hammer, is a good guy with a skull-crushing hammeryou’re absolutely right!
the ban on guns in australia has been disastrous! the number of good guys with guns has dropped dramatically and … well, so has the number of bad guys … but that’s a mirage! ignore our near 0 gun deaths… that’s a statistical anomaly!
Yet gun control works.
Same idea.
