Lemmy be like

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.

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.

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.

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.

One of these topics is about class consciousness, those other is about human rights.

An AI is not a person.

Someone with they/them pronouns is a person.

They have no business being compared to one another!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

“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.

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

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

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.

So cancer cell detection is now bad and those doing it should feel bad?

The world isn't black'n white.

So is eating meat, flying, gaming, going om holiday, basically if you exist you should feel bad

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.

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

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.

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?

Define "intelligence"

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?

Why does being progressive and into tech mean being into ai all of a sudden? It has never meant that, its the conservative mfs pushing ai for a reason. You think any sort of powerful ai is about to be open source and usable by the ppl? Not expensive af to run with hella regulations behind who can use it?

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

There are other mistakes in the image too

Yeah. I hate the naming of it too. It's not AI in the sense how science fiction saw it. History repeats itself in the name of marketing. I'm still very annoyed with these marketers destroying the term "hover board".

The LLM shills have made "AI" refer exclusively to LLMs. Honestly the best ad campaign ever.

Why the hell are you being downvoted? You are completely right.

People will look back at this and "hover boards" and will think "are they stupid!?"

Mislabeling a product isn't great marketing, it's false advertisement.