Lemmy be like

Wouldn't the opposite of artificial intelligence be natural stupidity?

Much love

What is the gaslighting here? A trend, or the act of pointing out a trend, do not seem like gaslighting to me. At most it seems like bandwagon propaganda or the satire thereof.

For the second paragraph, I agree we (Lemmings) are all pretty against it and we can be echo-chambery about it. You know, like Linux!

But I would also DISagree that we (population of earth) are all against it.

Are you honestly claiming a shitpost is gaslighting?

What a world we live in.

If we develop them into tools that help assist work.

Spoilers: We will not

I believe the AI business and the tech hype cycle is ultimately harming the field.

I think this is just an American way of doing business. And it's awful, but at the end of the day people will adopt technology if it makes them greater profit (or at least screws over the correct group of people).

But where the Americanized AI seems to suffer most is in their marketing fully eclipsing their R&D. People seem to have forgotten how DeepSeek spiked the football on OpenAI less than a year ago by making some marginal optimizations to their algorithm.

The field isn't suffering from the hype cycle nearly so much as it suffers from malinvestment. Huge efforts to make the platform marketable. Huge efforts to shoehorn clumsy chat bots into every nook and cranny of the OS interface. Vanishingly little effort to optimize material consumption or effectively process data or to segregate AI content from the human data it needs to improve.

I need to watch that video. I saw the first post but haven’t caught up yet.

Do you really need to have a list of why people are sick of LLM and Ai slop?

We don't need a collection of random 'AI bad' articles because your entire premise is flawed.

In general, people are not 'sick of LLM and Ai slop'. Real people, who are not chronically online, have fairly positive views of AI and public sentiment about AI is actually becoming more positive over time.

Here is Stanford's report on the public opinion regarding AI (https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2024-ai-index-report/public-opinion).

Stop being a corporate apologist and stop wreaking the environment with this shit technology.

My dude, it sounds like you need to go out into the environment a bit more.

Ai is literally making people dumber:

And books destroyed everyone's memory. People used to have fantastic memories.

They are a massive privacy risk:

No different than the rest of cloud tech. Run your AI local like your other self hosting.

Are being used to push fascist ideologies into every aspect of the internet:

Hitler used radio to push fascism into every home. It's not the medium, it's the message.

And they are a massive environmental disaster:

AI uses a GPU just like gaming uses a GPU. Building a new AI model uses the same energy that Rockstar spent developing GTA5. But it's easier to point at a centralized data center polluting the environment than thousands of game developers spread across multiple offices creating even more pollution.

Stop being a corporate apologist

Run your own AI! Complaining about "corporate AI" is like complaining about corporate email. Host it yourself.

https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about

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.

Lol I didn't know that the anarchists over at lemmy.dbzer0.com are being corporate apologists. /sarcasm

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

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.

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.

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.

Machines replacing people is not a bad thing if they can actually perform the same or better; the solution to unemployment would be Universal Basic Income.

Or are you yet another bot lost in the shuffle?

Yes, good job, anybody with opinions you don't like is a bot.

It's not like this was even a pro-AI post rather than just pointing out that even the most facile "ai bad, applause please" stuff will get massively upvoted

Yes. AI can be used for spam, job cuts, and creepy surveillance, no argument there, but pretending it’s nothing more than a corporate scam machine is just lazy cynicism. This same “automatic BS” is helping discover life-saving drugs, diagnosing cancers earlier than some doctors, giving deaf people real-time conversations through instant transcription, translating entire languages on the fly, mapping wildfire and flood zones so first responders know exactly where to go, accelerating scientific breakthroughs from climate modeling to space exploration, and cutting out the kind of tedious grunt work that wastes millions of human hours a day. The problem isn’t that AI exists, it’s that a lot of powerful people use it selfishly and irresponsibly. Blaming the tech instead of demanding better governance is like blaming the printing press for bad propaganda.

We should ban computers since they are making mass surveillance easier. /s

One could have said many of the same thigs about a lot of new technologies.

The Internet, Nuclear, Rockets, Airplanes etc.

Any new disruptive technology comes with drawbacks and can be used for evil.

But that doesn't mean it's all bad, or that it doesn't have its uses.

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.

Seriously, the AI hate gets old fast. Like you said it's a tool, gey get over it people.

A hammer doesn't consume exorbitant amounts of power and water.

Extreme oversimplification. Hammers don't kill the planet by simply existing.

“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.

He's made the World wake up to the fact that they can't trust the US, so that can be seen as good?

AI isn't that black and white, just like any big technology it can be used for good or bad.

Just like Airplanes

Define "intelligence"

Because I used AI slop to create this shitpost lol. So naturally it would make mistake.

There are other mistakes in the image too

That would seem hypocritical if you're completely blind to poetic irony, yes.

Wouldn't posting articles about AI making up bullshit support their claim that AI makes up bullshit?

They factually are. ML is AI. I think you mean AGI maybe?

Legitimately useful applications, like in the medical field, are actually brought up as examples of the "right kind" of use case for this technology.

Over and over again.

It's kind annoying, because both the haters of commercial LLM in All The Things and defenders of the same will bring up these exact same use cases as examples of good ai use.

Thats because platforms like Lemmy and Reddit utilize the bandwagon effect. The upvote/downvote system is inherently flawed because there is no accountability as to why one votes the way they do.

In this particular case people are just ignorant as to how these new technologies function for example they continue to call them AI when they're not AI they're llms... They have no clue how the technology functions or how it should function and simply go by whatever they read on their feed which on lemmy as you know is nothing good.

Think about your argument for a minute.

I know you think this will harm you and everyone you know, but it'll be much better if you just stay quiet instead of vocally opposing it

When has that ever been good advice?