You must log in or # to comment.
It Is true thou, ai bad
Wait to power tripper db0 sees this. Crying that their ai photos in all their coms are cringe
I was laughing today seeing the same users who have been calling AI a bullshit machine posting articles like “grok claims this happened”. Very funny how quick people switch up when it aligns with them.
I mean, it is objectively bad for life. Throwing away millions to billions of gallons of water all so you can get some dubious coding advice.
ai is pretty bad tho
Distributed platform owned by no one founded by people who support individual control of data and content access
Majority of users are proponents of owning what one makes and supporting those who create art and entertainment
AI industry shits on above comments by harvesting private data and creative work without consent or compensation, along with being a money, energy, and attention tar pit
Buddy, do you know what you’re here for?
EDIT: removed bot accusation, forgot to check user history
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, good job, anybody with opinions you don’t like is a bot.
I fucking knew it!
Yeah, I guess that was a bit too far, posted before I checked the user history or really gave it time to sit in my head.
Still, this kind of meme is usually used to imply that the comment is just a trend rather than a legitimate statement.
Maybe there’s some truth to it then. Have you considered that possibility?
HaVe YoU ConSiDeReD thE PoSSiBiLiTY that I’m not pro-AI and I understand the downsides, and can still point out that people flock like lemmings (*badum tss*) to any “AI bad” post regardless of whether it’s actually good or not?
Ok, so your point is: Look! People massively agree with an idea that makes sense and it’s true.
Color me surprised…
Why would a post need to be good? It just needs a good point. Like this post is good enough, even if I don’t agree that we have enough facile ai = posts.
Depends on the community, but for most of them pointing out ways that ai is bad is probably relevant, welcome, and typical.
Why would you lend and credence to the weakest appeal to the masses presented on the site?
Not all that glitters is gold. 🤷
Yes, any further questions?
It feels like the author of the post thinks superficially and doesn’t delve into the essence. Although, considering that killing children can also be funny, I don’t even know what to laugh at and what to cry about. It’s hard to understand someone else’s humor sometimes.
Yeah it is bad
It’s actually a real problem
How dare you?
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.Can, would… and did. The list of environmental disasters in the Soviet is long and intense.
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.
DB0 has a rather famous record of banning users who do not agree with AI. See [email protected] or others for many threads complaining about it.
You have no way of knowing what the scale would be as it’s all a thought experiment, however, so let’s play at that. if you see AI as a nearly universal good and want to encourage people to use it, why not incorporate it into things? Why not foist it into the state OS or whatever?
Buuuuut… keep in mind that in previous Communist regimes (even if you disagree that they were “real” Communists), what the state says will apply. If the state is actively pro-AI, then by default, you are using it. Are you too good to use what your brothers and sisters have said is good and will definitely 100% save labour? Are you wasteful, Comrade? Why do you hate your country?
Yes, I have seen posts on it. Sufficed to say, despite being an anarchist. I don’t have an account there for reasons. And don’t agree with everything they do.
The situation with those bans I might consider heavy handed and perhaps overreaching. But by the same token it’s a bit of a reflection of some of those that are banned. Overzealous and lacking nuance etc.
The funny thing is. They pretty much dislike the tech bros as much as anyone here does. You generally won’t ever find them defending their actions. They want AI etc that they can run from their home. Not snarfing up massive public resources, massively contributing to climate change, or stealing anyone’s livelihood. Hell many of them want to run off the grid from wind and solar. But, as always happens with the left. We can agree with eachother 90%, but will never tolerate or understand because of the 10%.
PS
We do know the scale. Your use of “the state” with reference to anarchism. Implies you’re unfamiliar with it. Anarchism and communism are against “the state” for the reasons you’re also warry of it. It’s too powerful and unanswerable.
And the point of anarchist or actual communist systems is that such scale would be miniscule.
Every community running their own AI would be even more wasteful than corporate centralization. It doesn’t matter what the system is if people want it.
The point is, most wouldn’t. It’s of little real use currently, especially the LLM bullshit. The communities would have infinitely better things to pit resources to.
The point is, most wouldn’t.
People currently want it despite it being stupid which is why corporations are in a frenzy to be the monopoly that provides it. People want all sorts of stupid things. A different system wouldn’t change that.
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 see, so you don’t understand. Or simply refuse to engage with what was asked.
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 mean you’d have to be pretty smart to make the perfect system. Things failing isn’t proof that things can’t be better.
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.
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.
AI is exactly as bad as mechanised weaving looms.
i’m pro-AI (with huuuuge caveats) but i disagree with this… AI reduces certain jobs in a similar way, but it also enables large scale manipulation and fucks with our thought processes on a large scale
i’d say it’s like if a mechanised weaving loom also invented the concept of disinformation and propaganda
… but also, mechanised weaving loom effected a single industry: modern ML has the potential to effect the large majority of people: it’s on a different scale than the disruption of the textile industry
You mean it’s going to outsource the labour to children in third world countries?
More or less
you do realize mechanized looms were used to put people out of jobs and very very very clearly harm them, right? this isn’t an argument in favour of AI, it’s an argument against it.
I’d welcome actual AI. What is peddled everyday as “AI” is just marketing bullshit. There’s no intelligence in it. Language shapes perception and we should take those words back and use them according to their original and inherent meaning. LLMs are not AI. Stable diffusion is not AI. Neural networks trained for a singular task are not AI.
Define “intelligence”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
Take your pick from anything that isn’t recent and by computer scientists or mathematicians, to call stuff intelligent that clearly isn’t. According to some modern marketing takes I developed AI 20 years ago (optimizing search problems for agentic systems); it’s just that my peers and I weren’t stupid enough to call the results intelligent.
Yeah I read from that Wiki page — also from intelligence etymology and I totally get comments like yours. However saying LLMs are not AI and other kind of stuff are not AI can’t be accepted and often can lead to misunderstanding to non-techies. On the same Wiki page, there’s also mentioning about “Artificial”, since it’s artifical e.g. not created by nature and not having complex system like us humans, then LLMs can still be categorized as AI. Of course it will still have flaws tho. I’m here not to stand with LLMs but rather just want to tell people that terms misusage that I see oftentimes misleading and can spread misinformation. Let alone those big techs saying AI this and AI that whilst it’s just a subset of AI like LLMs, I just don’t want people here also falling in the same hole like those big techs that are using wrong terms in technology.
But like… Good.
Back in my day, PAC-Man ghosts stayed perfectly still, exhibiting no behaviour at all and that’s how we Lemmy people liked it!
