It’s been a while since I’ve seen this meme template being used correctly
Turns out, most people think their stupid views are actually genius
So the problem isn’t the technology. The problem is unethical big corporations.
Same as it ever was…
depends. for “AI” “art” the problem is both terms are lies. there is no intelligence and there is no art.
Define art.
Any work made to convey a concept and/or emotion can be art. I’d throw in “intent”, having “deeper meaning”, and the context of its creation to distinguish between an accounting spreadsheet and art.
The problem with AI “art” is it’s produced by something that isn’t sentient and is incapable of original thought. AI doesn’t understand intent, context, emotion, or even the most basic concepts behind the prompt or the end result. Its “art” is merely a mashup of ideas stolen from countless works of actual, original art run through an esoteric logic network.
AI can serve as a tool to create art of course, but the further removed from the process a human is the less the end result can truly be considered “art”.
Well said!
As a thought experiment let’s say an artist takes a photo of a sunset. Then the artist uses AI to generate a sunset and AI happens to generate the exact same photo. The artist then releases one of the two images with the title “this may or may not be made by AI”. Is the released image art or not?
If you say the image isn’t art, what if it’s revealed that it’s the photo the artist took? Does is magically turn into art because it’s not made by AI? If not does it mean when people “make art” it’s not art?
If you say the image is art, what if it’s revealed it’s made by AI? Does it magically stop being art or does it become less artistic after the fact? Where does value go?
The way I see it is that you’re trying to gatekeep art by arbitrarily claiming AI art isn’t real art. I think since we’re the ones assigning a meaning to art, how it is created doesn’t matter. After all if you’re the artist taking the photo isn’t the original art piece just the natural occurrence of the sun setting. Nobody created it, there is no artistic intention there, it simply exists and we consider it art.
there’s something’s highly suspect about someone not understanding the difference between art made by a human being and some output spit out by a dumb pixel mixer. huge red flag imo.
and yes, the value does go. because we care about origin and intent. that’s the whole point.
if the original Mona Lisa were to be sold for millions of dollars, and then someone reveals that it was not the original Mona Lisa but a replica made last week by some dude… do you think the buyer would just go “eh it looks close enough”? no they would sue the fuck out of the seller and guess what, the painting would not be worth millions anymore. it’s the same painting. the value is changed. ART IS NOT A PRODUCT.
there’s something’s highly suspect about someone not understanding the difference between art made by a human being and some output spit out by a dumb pixel mixer. huge red flag imo.
Translation. I can’t argue your point so I’m going to try characters assassination.
if the original Mona Lisa were to be sold for millions of dollars, and then someone reveals that it was not the original Mona Lisa but a replica made last week by some dude… do you think the buyer would just go “eh it looks close enough”? no they would sue the fuck out of the seller and guess what, the painting would not be worth millions anymore. it’s the same painting. the value is changed. ART IS NOT A PRODUCT.
Pretty ironic to say art is not a product and then argue that its monetary value would decrease, which can happen only if you treat art as a product.
Imagine if instead of a physical painting Mona Lisa was a digital file and free on the internet, would people think Mona Lisa is less impressive as an art piece because anyone could own it? I think it’s artistic value wouldn’t decrease, only its value as a product would decrease because everyone could get it for free.
it’s not a product in the sense that its value does not come from its function, otherwise it would not lose value when it would be revealed to be of a different origin, but otherwise exactly the same. i spoke of the monetary value just because it’s quantifiable; it’s not otherwise relevant.
if Mona Lisa was free and digital it would be as valuable as a digital Mona Lisa could be. being free and digital doesn’t make it pointless, without agency or intent like AI art is.
That’s like saying photoshop doesn’t understand the context and the meaning of art.
“Only physically painted art is art”.
Using AI to achieve an concrete piece of art can be pretty complex and surely the artist can create something with an intended meaning with it.
i won’t, but art has intent. AI doesn’t.
Pollock’s paintings are art. a bunch of paint buckets falling on a canvas in an earthquake wouldn’t make art, even if it resembled Pollock’s paintings. there’s no intent behind it. no artist.
The intent comes from the person who writes the prompt and selects/refines the most fitting image it makes
that’s like me intending for it to rain and when it eventually would, claiming i made it rain because i intended for it.
How can you tell if an entity has intent or not?
comes with having a brain and knowing what intent means.
Yes, but where do you draw a line in AI of having an intent. Surely AGI has intent but you say current AIs do not.
yes because there is no intelligence. AI is a misnomer. intent needs intelligence.
there is no intelligence and there is no art.
People said exact same thing about CGI, and photography before. I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody scream “IT’S NOT ART” at Michaelangelo or people carving walls of temples in ancient Egypt.
the “people” you’re talking about were talking about tools. I’m talking about intent. Just because you compare two arguments that use similar words doesn’t mean the arguments are similar.
Intent is not needed for the art, else all the art in history where we can’t say what author wanted to express or the ones misunderstood wouldn’t be considered art. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Note that one of the first regulations of AI art that is always proposed is that AI art be clearly labeled as such, because whomever propose it do know the above.
i didn’t say knowing the intent is needed. i believe in death of the author, so that isn’t relevant.
the intent to create art is, however, needed. the fountain is art, but before it became the fountain, the urinal itself wasn’t.
I get you but it’s really not necessary. In case of (somewhat) realist art you can still recognize AI artifacts, but abstract art is already unrecognizable (and this is the precise reason they want AI art to be marked, so they won’t embarrass themselves with peans over something churned out by computer in few seconds), not to mention there is also art created by animals, and it is considered art but it’s not created with intent, except maybe the intent of people dipping dog’s paw in paint. Thus we again just get to the distinction that art needs to be created just by living things? It’s meaningless.
Anyway, i guess next few years will make this even more muddled and the art scene will get transformed permanently. Hell recently i’ve encountered some AI power metal music which is basically completely indistinguishable from normal, but in this case it mostly serve to show how uninspired and generic entire genre is.
AI is a tool used by a human. The human using the tools has an intention, wants to create something with it.
It’s exactly the same as painting digital art. But instead o moving the mouse around, or copying other images into a collage, you use the AI tool, which can be pretty complex to use to create something beautiful.
Do you know what generative art is? It existed before AI. Surely with your gatekeeping you think that’s also no art.
I’m so sick of this. there are scenarios in which so-called “AI” can be used as a tool. for example, resampling. it’s dodgy, but whatever, let’s say the tech is perfected and it truly analyzes data to give a good result rather than stealing other art to match.
but a tool is something that does exactly what you intend for it to do. you can’t say 100 dice are collectively “a tool that outputs 600” because you can sit there and roll them for as long as it takes for all of them to turn up sixes, technically. and if you do call it that, that’s still a shitty tool, and you did nothing worth crediting to get 600. a robot can do it. and it does. and that makes it not art.
So do you not what generative art is. And you pretend to stablish catedra on art.
Generative art, that existed before even computers, is s form of art in which a algorithm created a form of art, and that algorithm can be repeated easily. Humans can replicate that algorithm, but computers can too, and generative art is mostly used with computers because obvious reasons. Those generative algorithms can be deterministic or non deterministic.
And all this before AI, way before.
AI on its essence is just a really complex and large generative algorithm, that some people do not understand and this are afraid of it, like people used to be afraid of eclipses.
Also, you seems not to know that photographs also take hundreds or thousands of pictures with just pressing a button and just select the good ones.
cameras do not make random images. you know exactly what you’re getting with a photograph. the reason you take multiples is mostly for timing and lighting. also, rolling a hundred dice is not the same as painting something 100 times and picking the best one, nor is it like photographing it. the fact that you’re even making this comparison is insane.
If you know how to use an AI you also know how it’s working and what are you going to get, is not random. It’s a complex generative algorithm where you put in the initial variables, nothing more.
the AI itself doesn’t know what it’s doing, neither are you. the fact that you’re putting in words to change the outcome until the dice fall somewhat close to where you want them to fall doesn’t make it yours. you can’t add your own style to it, because you’re not doing it.
deleted by creator
Technology is a cultural creation, not a magic box outside of its circumstances. “The problem isn’t the technology, it’s the creators, users, and perpetuators” is tautological.
And, importantly, the purpose of a system is what it does.
But not al users of AI are malignant or causing environment damage.
Saying the contrary would be a bad generalization.
I have LLM models running on a n100 chip that have less consumption that the lemmy servers we are writing on right now.
So you’re using a different specific and niche technology (which directly benefits and exists because of) the technology that is the subject of critique, and acting like the subject technology behaves like yours?
“Google is doing a bad with z”
“z can’t be bad, I use y and it doesn’t have those problems that are already things that happened. In the past. Unchangeable by future actions.”
??
No. I’m just not fear mongering things I do not understand.
Technology is technology. Most famously nuclear technology can be used both for bombs or giving people the basic need that electricity is.
Rockets can be used as weapons or to deliver spacecraft and do science in space.
Biotechnology can be used both to create and to cure diseases.
A technology is just an applied form of human knowledge. Wanting to ban human progress in any way is the true evilness from my point of view.
No one wants to ban technology outright. What we’re saying is that the big LLMs are actively harmful to us, humanity. This is not fear mongering. This is just what’s happening. OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and Meta are stealing from humanity at large and setting the planet on fire to do it. For years they told us stealing intellectual property on an individual level was a harmful form of theft. Now they’re doing the same kind of theft bit its different now because it benefits them instead of us.
What we are arguing is that this is bad. Its especially extra bad because with the death of big search a piece of critical infrastructure to the internet as we know it is now just simply broken. The open source wonks you celebrate are working on fixing this. But just because someone criticizes big tech does not mean they criticize all tech. The truth is the FAANG companies plus OpenAI and Microsoft are killing our planet for it to only benefit their biggest shareholders
I did not believe in Intelectual Property before. I’m not going to start believing now.
The same I think that corporations having a hold on media is bad for humandkind I think that small artists should not have a "not usable by AI"hold on what they post. Sharing knowledge is good for humanity. Limitate who can have access or how they can use that knowledge or culture is bad.
The dead of internet have nothing to do with AI and all to do with leaving internet in hands of a couple big corporations.
As for emissions… are insignificant relative to other sources of CO2 emissions. Do you happen to eat meat, travel abroad for tourism, watch sports, take you car to work, buy products made overseas? Those are much bigger sources of CO2.
You dont think polluting the world is going to have a net negative effect for humanity?
What exactly is there to gain with AI anyways? What’s the great benefit to us as a species? So far its just been used to trivialize multiple artistic disciplines, basic service industries, and programming.
Things have a cost, many people are doing the cost-benefit analysis and seeing there is none for them. Seems most of the incentive to develop this software is if you would like to stop paying people who do the jobs listed above.
What do we get out of burning the planet to the ground? And even if you find an AI thats barely burning it, what’s the point in the first place?
No. I’m just not fear mongering things I do not understand.
Neither am I. When you’re defending whatabputism, it’s best you at least try to represent the arguments of the person you’re arguing with accurately.
False equivalence is a classic. Biotechnology is not a technology, for example, it’s billions of technologies informed, designed, and implemented, by humans, technology is a cultural feature.
Technology as this thing free from the ethics of its use is tech bro ancap cope to justify technological pursuits with empty ethical value. You can think “banning human progress in any way” is evil. But that would make you wildly uncritical of your own beliefs.
Feel free to take your arguments back to e/acc, where that level of convenience induced niavety is considered rhetorically valid.
Technology is a product of science. The facts science seeks to uncover are fundamental universal truths that aren’t subject to human folly. Only how we use that knowledge is subject to human folly. I don’t think open source or open weights models are a bad usage of that knowledge. Some of the things corporations do are bad or exploitative uses of that knowledge.
You should really try and consider what it means for technology to be a cultural feature. Think, genuinely and critically, about what it means when someone tells you that you shouldn’t judge the ethics and values of their pursuits, because they are simply discovering “universal truths”.
And then, really make sure you ponder what it means when people say the purpose of a system is what it does. Why that might get brought up in discussions about wanton resource spending for venture capitalist hype.
That’s not at all what I am doing, or what scientists and engineers do. We are all trained to think about ethics and seek ethical approval because even if knowledge itself is morally neutral the methods to obtain that knowledge can be truly unhinged.
Scientific facts are not a cultural facet. A device built using scientific knowledge is also a product of the culture that built it. Technology stands between objective science and subjective needs and culture. Technology generally serves some form of purpose.
Here is an example: Heavier than air flight is a possibility because of the laws of physics. A Boeing 737 is a specific product of both those laws of physics and of USA culture. It’s purpose is to get people and things to places, and to make Boeing the company money.
LLMs can be used for good and ill. People have argued they use too much energy for what they do. I would say that depends on where you get your energy from. Ultimately though it doesn’t use as much as people driving cars or mining bitcoin or eating meat. You should be going after those first if you want to persecute people for using energy.
It does not appear to me that you have even humored my request. I’m actually not even confident you read my comment given your response doesn’t actually respond to it. I hope you will.
Think, genuinely and critically, about what it means when someone tells you that you shouldn’t judge the ethics and values of their pursuits, because they are simply discovering “universal truths”.
No scientist or engineer as ever said that as far as I can recall. I was explaining that even for scientific fact which is morally neutral how you get there is important, and that scientists and engineers acknowledge this. What you are asking me to do this based on a false premise and a bad understanding of how science works.
And then, really make sure you ponder what it means when people say the purpose of a system is what it does.
It both is and isn’t. Things often have consequences alongside their intended function, like how a machine gets warm when in use. It getting warm isn’t a deliberate feature, it’s a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. We actually try to minimise this as it wastes energy. Even things like fossil fuels aren’t intended to ruin the planet, it’s a side effect of how they work.
It’s a very common talking point now to claim technology exists independent of the culture surrounding it. It is a lie to justify morally vacant research which the, normally venture capitalist, is only concerned about the money to be made. But engineers and scientists necessarily go along with it. It’s not not your problem because we are the ones executing cultural wants, we are a part of the broader culture as well.
The purpose of a system is, absolutely, what it does. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned your design and ethics were, once the system is doing things, those things are its purpose. Your waste heat example, yes, it was the design intent to eliminate that, but now that’s what it does, and the engineers damn well understand that its purpose is to generate waste heat in order to do whatever work it’s doing.
This is a systems engineering concept. And it’s inescapable.
Always has been
Considering most new technology these days is merely a distilation of the ethos of the big corporations, how do you distinguish?
Not true though.
Current AI generative have its bases in# Frank Rosenblatt and other scientists working mostly in universities.
Big corporations had made an implementation but the science behind it already existed. It was not created by those corporations.
This has been going on since big oil popularized the “carbon footprint”. They want us arguing with each other about how useful crypto/AI/whatever are instead of agreeing about pigouvian energy taxes and socialized control of the (already monopolized) grid.
The root problem is capitalism though, if it wasn’t AI it would be some other idiotic scheme like cryptocurrency that would be wasting energy instead. The problem is with the system as opposed to technology.
Right, but the technology has the system’s philosophy baked into it. All inventions encourage a certain way of seeing the world. It’s not a coincidence that agriculture yields land ownership, mass production yields wage labor, or in this case fuzzy plagiarism machines yield a transhuman death cult.
Sure, technology is a product of the culture and it in turn influences how the culture develops, there’s a dialectical relationship there.
So why take the heat off of AI, as if profiting from mass plagiarism is different when it has an API instead of flesh and bone?
Because as I explained in my original comment, if it’s not AI it’s going to be some other bullshit.
The root problem is human ideology. I do not know if we can have humans without ideology.
Nah, human ideology is much broader than a single economic system. The fact that people who live under capitalism can’t understand this just shows the power of indoctrination.
I’m not a fan of ideology.
What you’re saying is that you’re not self aware enough to realize that you have an ideology. Everyone has a world view that they develop to understand how the world works, and every world view necessarily represents a simplification of reality. Forming abstractions is how our minds deal with complexity.
I’m autistic.
Do you think people should be treated with respect? Do you think there should be consideration for your condition so you are not exempt from certain events, activities, opportunities?
These are matters of ideology. If you say yes to it, it is ideological in the same way when you say no to it. There is no inherent objective truth to these value questions.
Same for the economy. It doesn’t matter if you think that growth should be the main objective, or that equal opportunity should be the focus or sustainability or other things. You will have to make a value judgement and the sum of these values represent your ideology.
There is no inherent objective truth to these value questions.
I disagree. These values are based on objective observations.
What is an ideology to you?
The dictionary definition.
This sounds like some Žižekian nonsense. Capitalism’s Court Jester: Slavoj Žižek
I’m open to trying a non-Capitalist system, but I’m pretty sure hierarchical bullshit will happen and the majority will end up being exploited.
Whether anyone else is open to it before humans extinguish themselves, I don’t know.
If you think that sounds like “Žižekian nonsense”, then you obviously don’t understand what Žižek argues, because he clearly doesn’t say anything silly like “human ideology” (or “Žižekianism”, for that matter). The article you posted also does wonders completely breaking down Žižek as an abonimable human being - while not truly engaging with his ideas. It is pretty worthless, takes things deliberately out of context, and, after rigorously defining him as a persona non grata, invests no proper effort to do what actual communists like Marx and Lenin did - acknowledge that even enemies like that can give contributions to understanding, and things to learn from and work at doing so.
Does he sometimes spew bullshit? Absolutely. Does he believe in “human ideology” or spout anticommunism on a worse level than The Black Book of Communism, as the article wants to imply? Only if you deliberately misread and misinterpret him.
We apparently read different articles. I bet you didn’t even read it.
invests no proper effort to do what actual communists like Marx and Lenin did
😂
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Rockhill
- https://gabrielrockhill.com/
- https://criticaltheoryworkshop.com/about-2/
.
No one knows the compatible left better than Rockhill, because he did his graduate work under some of them, namely Derrida & Badiou.- Foucault: The Faux Radical
- The CIA & the Frankfurt School’s Anti-Communism
- The Myth of 1968 Thought and the French Intelligentsia: Historical Commodity Fetishism and Ideological Rollback
- Imperialist Propaganda and the Ideology of the Western Left Intelligentsia: From Anticommunism and Identity Politics to Democratic Illusions and Fascism
Yeah, look, I did read the article, and the article, unlike the person who might very well have done that in their work, did not do that. All I see is the same flipping of materialist analysis into an ideological dogma, that becomes ahistoric, trying to repeat instead of following material developments towards communism. From a quick look at your links, there’s even a lot I agree with, especially in criticising the French intellectuals. It still reads like a polemic removed from reality, that values its own farts more than understanding and working towards change, but it has value. And the article you linked in the beginning does nothing, but try to opportunistically recruit people away from one ideologue (which Zizek can definitiely be called) to another idealist “team” that tries to redirect proletarian material interests and analysis. You seem to think it’s a contest of who can quote “great people” the best and who can be the most orthodox, which treats it all like a religion instead of a material movement to change the world and mode of production.
In the end, I fear, we will be on other sides of the river, each seeing “their idealist perversions” across from “our materialist analysis”, but I at least won’t cross the river for your side any time soon.
Okay, Holden Caulfield, best of luck with your own personal, non-phony, left-libertarian revolution.
Nice burn, even brought in the “libertarian”, at least be consistent, if I am a Zizekian heretic, I’m not an individualist libertarian who’s afraid of authority, I am of course a liberal anticommunist reactionary who won’t acknowledge the achievements of “really existing socialism”. You strike me as someone who would have written a hit piece on Marx for profiting from British imperialism and his capitalist buddy Engels, citing the letter and his drinking habits to make clear that he is an immature mind, then join some utopian socialist fringe group.
But what if we use AI in robots and have them go out with giant vacuums to suck up all the bad gasses?
My climate change solution consultation services are available for hire anytime.
Careful! Last time I sarcastically posted a stupid AI idea, within minutes a bunch of venture capitalists tracked me down, broke down my door and threw money at me non stop for hours.
Robots figuring out that without humans releasing gas their job is a lot more efficient could cause a few problems.
Don’t worry, they will figure out that without humans releasing gasses they have no purpose, so they will cull most of the human population but keep just enough to justify their existence to manage it.
Although you don’t need AI to figure that one out. Just look at the relationships between the US intelligence and military and “terrorist groups”.
Don’t worry, they will figure out that without humans releasing gasses they have no purpose, so they will cull most of the human population but keep just enough to justify their existence to manage it.
Unfortunately this statement also applies to the 1%. And the “just enough” will get smaller and smaller as AI and automation replace humans.
It’s wild how we went from…
Critics: “Crypto is an energy hog and its main use case is a convoluted pyramid scheme”
Boosters: “Bro trust me bro, there are legit use cases and energy consumption has already been reduced in several prototype implementations”
…to…
Critics: “AI is an energy hog and its main use case is a convoluted labor exploitation scheme”
Boosters: “Bro trust me bro, there are legit use cases and energy consumption has already been reduced in several prototype implementations”
They’re not really comparable. Crypto and blockchain were good solutions looking for problems to solve. They’re innovative and cool? Sure, but they never had a widescale use. AI has been around for awhile, it just got recently rebranded as artificial intellectual, the same technologies were called algorithms a few years ago… And they basically run the internet and the global economy. Hospitals, schools, corporations, governments, the militaries, etc all use them. Maybe certain uses of AI are dumb, but trying to pretend that the thing as a whole doesn’t have, or rather already has, genuine uses is just dumb
I feel like you’re being incredibly generous with the usage of AI here. I feel as though the post and comment above refer to LLM/image generation AI. Those “types of ‘AI’” certainly don’t run all those things.
The term AI is very vague because intelligence is an inherently subjective concept. If we’re defining AI as something that has consciousness then it doesn’t exist, but if we’re defining it as a task that a computer can do on it’s own, then virtually everything that is automated is run by AI.
Even with generative AI models, they’ve been around for a while too. For example, lot of the news articles you read, especially about the weather or news aren’t written by actual people, they’re AI generated. Another example would be scientific simulations, they use AI to generate a bunch of possible scenarios based on given parameters. Yet another example would be the gaming industry, what do you think generates Minecraft worlds? The point here is that AI has been around for awhile and is already being used everywhere. What we’re seeing with chatGPT and these other new models is that these models are now being released for public access. It’s like democratization of AI, and a lot of good and bad things are bound to come of it. We’re at the infancy stage of this now, but just like with the world wide web before it, these technologies are going to fundamentally change how we do many things from now on.
We can’t fight technology, that’s a losing battle. These AIs are here and they’re here to stay. So strap on and enjoy the ride.
I think you misunderstood me, I’m not trying to make some point about “LLMs aren’t ‘real AI’” or even what is and is not AI. I’m just saying the post is talking about that type of AI specifically and I wouldn’t say those types are controlling that much of the world.
Stupid AI will destroy humanity. But the important thing to remember is that for a brief, shining moment, profit will be made.
Line go up 🤓
deleted by creator
This conveniently ignores the progress being made with smaller and smaller models in the open source community.
Nowadays you can actually get a semi decent chat bot working on a n100 that consumes next to nothing even at full charge.
I guess someone needs to tell google.
Someone needs to tell google that AI powered search is not working right now, and that they better wait a few years to try massively implementing that in a successful way.
Other AI fields are working really good. But search engine “instant AI answers” for general use are not in a phase when they should be as widely used as google (or microsoft) is trying to use them right now.
As with literally every technical progress, tech itself is no problem, capitalism usage of it is.
The problem is the concentration of power, Sam “regulate me daddy” Altman’s plan is to get the government to create a web of regulation that makes it so only the big tech giants have access to the uncensored models.
Of course, as usual with capitalism and basically everything, we had hope to recieve a tool making expressing themselves easy for workers lacking time and training to do art, and we will superexpensive proprietary software and monopolies quite possibly gatekeep by law. Again just as in software some hope is in open source.
In what sense does a small community working with open weight (note: rarely if ever open source) llm have any mitigating impact on the rampant carbon emissions for the sake of bullshit generators?
Not a small community by any means. It inherently is opposed to the unnecessarily large and wasteful models of corporations. But when people just lump i al l under “AI”, the actually useful local models are the ones most likely to get harmed while Google, meta, and the other megacorps will be able to operate with impunity.
Those people doing the majority of the lumping, and it’s not even close, are the corporations themselves. The short hand exists. Machine learning is doing fine. Intentionally misinterpreting a message to incidentally defend the actions of the corporations doing the damage you are opposed to ain’t it.
It’s almost all if Google chasing a quick buck is the issue.
Crazy how corporations do that
The big companies are racing to get the best model, and they’re using highly inefficient GPUs to get there. Not just Google, Meta is doing it as well. They’re also completely missing their “climate target” goals because of it
And all for some drunken answers and a few new memes
In my country this kind of AI is being used to more efficiently find tax fraud and to create chatbots for users to understand taxes, that due to the much more reliable and limited training set does not allucinate and can provide clear sources for the information given.
Which magical country is this? Can I come?
;-)
I’m actually curious (kind of desperate for some good news nowadays). Not trying to make fun of you
Spain. AEAT is out tax authority and has begun using AI in recent years, as an early adopter. The Spanish government in general seems very favorable towards AI and it’s funding a nationally trained model.
Cool, thanks for the info and link
Personally I think AI systems will kill us dead simply by having no idea what to do, dodgy old coots thinking machines are magic and know everything when in reality machines can barely approximate what we tell them to do and base their information on this terrible approximation.
Machines will do exactly what you tell them to do and is the cause of many software bugs. That’s kind of the problem, no matter how elegant the algorithm, fuzzy goes in, fuzzy comes out. It was clear this very basic principle was not even considered when Google started telling people to eat rocks and glue. You can’t patch special cases out when they are so poorly understood.
Not only the pollution.
It has triggered an economic race to the bottom for any industry that can incorporate it. Employers will be forced to replace more workers with AI to keep prices competitive. And that is a lot of industries, especially if AI continues its growth.
The result is a lot of unemployment, which means an economic slowdown due to a lack of discretionary spending, which is a feedback loop.There are only 3 outcomes I can imagine:
- AI fizzles out. It can’t maintain its advancement enough to impress execs.
- An unimaginable wealth disparity and probably a return to something like feudalism.
- social revolution where AI is taken out of the hands of owners and placed into the hands of workers. Would require changes that we’d consider radically socialist now, like UBI and strong af social safety nets.
The second seems more likely than the third, and I consider that more or less a destruction of humanity
I don’t like to use relative numbers to illustrate the increase. 48% can be miniscule or enormous based on the emission last year.
While I don’t think the increase is miniscule it’s still an unessesary ambiguity.
The relative number here might be more useful as long as it’s understood that Google already has significant emissions. It’s also sufficient to convey that they’re headed in the wrong direction relative to their goal of net zero. A number like 14.3 million tCO₂e isn’t as clear IMO.
Can understand that, but I feel it’s dumbed down. Better to state the increase and then say it’s relative to [some relatable fact] perhaps?
This is the way
There are some pretty smart/knowledgeable people in the left camp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ziuPUeewK0Miles is chill in my book. I appreciate what he is tackling, and hope he continues.
It seems that there are much worse issues with AI systems that are happening right now. I think those issues should be taking precedent over the alignment problem.
Some of the issues are bad enough right now that AI development and use should be banned for a limited time frame (at least 5 years) while we figure out more ethical ways of doing it. The fact that we aren’t doing that is a massive failure of our already constantly-fucking-up governments.
Plenty of smart people are focused on stupid ideas that are useless in general. Plenty of people who only appear smart also do the same.
wait until the curveless anon comes in
Where’s the “If AI destroys humanity, we deserved it”?
The way it’s done at this current moment is in no way sustainable. Once we start seeing better dedicated hardware for doing ai on client side hardware and remove the need to use massive GPU farms. AI is cool but it’s like driving a tank to the grocery store. We need the Prius of ai.
