I think Lemmy in general is very against AI

I agree, although for a counter-case, db0 has involvement in community-driven image generation (Horde, some communities they host and banners they use).

My view isn’t as blanket as pro- or anti- “AI” (and I add quotes because I see that as a science-fiction term adapted into a marketing fantasy).

These technologies are powerful and there are legitimate, productive, pro-social uses of them (an obvious example is assisting in medical diagnosis). They are not inherently incompatible with social values, environmental progress, and the other problems associated with it - these technologies are tools powered by electricity and materials. But the way they are currently implemented, the economic concerns around marketing them, and the lack of broad education around them, are very very dangerous.

• The way regular people misunderstand and misuse the technology has already resulted in direct deaths, all kinds of mismanagement and mass sacking of workers. Mistrusting technology is no new issue, see ELIZA in the '60s for example, but this is so much more accessible, more misrepresented due to marketing campaigns and social media, and more powerful. Furthermore, a huge proportion of people don’t have the media literacy to instinctively doubt its output - and this was already a big enough issue with news media.

• Processing currently is largely done using non-renewable energy sources in large centralized data centers (consuming water, creating noise pollution, etc.) which has serious global and local environment issues.

• Most of our exposure to this technology as regular citizens is wasteful or actively harmful, such as propaganda/forgery, vapid industrialization of artistic aesthetics, unsolicited sexualization, scams and fraud attacks, automated bots, advertising and other ‘slop’, along with misguided attempts to eliminate workers from jobs which cannot be adequately delegated to these tools.

AI represents a lot things people here dislike (large stock bubble companies, scraping, energy waste, etc)

Yeah, Lemmy is a bit over-the-top anti-AI, but most of it is based in reality.

There are a bunch of problems with AI. And they outbnumer any good ones by a mile.

The main cause of that fact is the entire AI bubble.

AI wastes a fuckton of energy. Of course, this energy isn’t free: communities pay. Electricity demand goes up, and so does price. Then, most electricity isn’t green. And on top of that, the rise in demand causes more electricity peaks, which almost exclusively get “fixed” through fossil fuel-based methods.

From another angle, AI disrupts markets. And not in a good way. Companies dump millions into AI while neglecting their employees (who get laid off because AI “can replace” them), and their customers as well (since instead of doing useful stuff for consumers they pump out AI-branded bullshit no one wants or needs).

Then, big AI companies spit in the face of copyright and have the audacity to turn around and claim copyright on their models’ outputs. If inputs are free game, so are the outputs. Copyright is a very vague, misunderstood and misused term, and no argument I’ve heard claiming feeding stuff into AI is fair use was grounded in reality.

That all veing said, AI is here to stay. I’ve been thinking long and hard about similar fundamental changes to how human society functions, and I think i found one. Photography.

Way back when, you had to do things painstakibgly by hand. Drawing, copying books by hand, etc.

Then the printing press came. Revolutionary? Sure. But not as revolutionary as photography. Instead of writing by hand, you had to typeset by hand before printing. This made the process scalable, but it was still painstaking work.

But photography is a different matter. You just have to make (or buy) a camera and other required supplies (film, developing media, etc), and then you merely have to set up the camera, take the photo, develop the film, and make the photo.

Even in the early days of photography, while these processes took some time, it wasn’t painstaking. To take a photo, you set up the camera, and wait. To develop film, you dunk the film into a chemical bath, and wait. To transfer the image onto paper - a similar ordeal. Set, forget.

Photography fundamentally changed how the entirety of society works. Painters complained and lost jobs and livelihoods - like the “jobs stolen” by AI. Instead of drawing stuff, which required a lot of skill, taking a photo is much simpler (abd faster).

Yesterday, instead of having to paint stuff, you’d take a photo. Today, instead of taking a photo, you ask AI.

On the copyright front, the paralels are obvious: Taking a photo of a book is fair use. But photocopying a book isn’t. The problem with AI is that it does some transformations to the original, so it’s obfuscated inside the model. But the obfuscation can be undone, as AI often happily spits out certain inputs verbatim when asked. Take a photo of a page - okay. Photocopy the entire book? Not okay.

The situation is the same when we look at artwork instead of books. Taking a photo of an artwork in a museum is okay. Scanning an artwork (duplicating it verbatim) - isn’t. Same for movies. A frame is probably gonna be okay. The entire movie - won’t.

Going by the closest analogue, there is absolutely no justification to indiscriminately feed everything and anything into AI, for indiscriminately photocopying and vervatim copying the same material is clearly protected.

Yup looks like AI

I’m pissed at how its able to license wash Foss code and peoples IP. But it seems there are no rules for American or Chinese tech companies because they refuse to legislate so ip should be completely removed. There is no way any of their IP should be respected.

It’s the year 2026. All of Lemmy has been conquered by AI haters.

All of Lemmy? No. A small instance resists: Lemmygrad.

Not against AI. I use it quite a lot. I also find amusement when it tells me things that are just wrong in a very sure way. So never fully trust AI. If you accept that then AI can be quite useful.

Considering the username, I’m just sitting here wondering if we’re just arguing against an LLM.

Many people here know that “AI” as a term is pure snake oil. You aren’t actually talking about anything until you say what you think it means, or specific examples.

AI research goes back to the early 1950s. Being “against” all of that old research is kinda meaningless… So it’s your job to clarify what you mean, or not, and other users will respond accordingly.

Reality as an artist dictates that all my work was datamined without my consent and anything I post in the future, should I choose to do so, will. And the end result of this data mining is to drive artists like me out of business. I don’t mind the average Joe getting their anime girl with three titties in five minutes, but company owners are making money out of this and paying nobody for their source material.

I am not “against” AI. I am against unfettered capitalism and how it is poisoning humanity. AI can hold the same kind of promise that Internet v1 had before the first eternal September. But because of the “success” of the capitalization of the web, folks are flocking to AI on the assumption that something similar will happen to it. I see it as a gold rush. Some boom towns may happen along the way. Some may endure. But it’s still very early to know that.

I think there is a lot of misdirected frustration. The technology isn’t the issue, the way it’s been implemented is the issue. There are some useful use cases for AI.

There was a post on Mastodon that I sadly cannot find right now that really articulated the fact that there’s not necessarily a single problem with LLMs and generative AI - the issue is that there’s an entire stack of potential dangers associated with them. To paraphrase:

Use of and reliance on LLMs for certain tasks has shown to have deleterious effects on critical thinking skills.

Even if that isn’t true or I weren’t concerned about it, I’d be concerned about its effects on my psychological wellbeing.

Even if I weren’t concerned about that, I’d be concerned about the ethical issues of how their training data was and is acquired.

Even if I weren’t concerned about that, I’d be concerned about its effects on the job market and the further upward concentration of wealth.

Even if I weren’t concerned about that, I’d be concerned about the massive energy costs and the associated effects on utility bills and greenhouse gas emissions.

Even if I weren’t concerned about that, I’d be concerned about the massive cooling requirements and its effects on the global availability of clean water.

Even if certain approaches to or implementations of GAI solve one or a couple of these concerns, I’d have to overcome all of them (and likely others I’ve forgotten to list) to feel comfortable using GAI in any serious capacity, and even then it looks like I would end up with a tool that I’d have to constantly double-check to avoid hallucinations. It’s just not worth it.

And nearly all of these arguments also to apply to others using GAI, so I’m forced to advocate against it.

Marketing account.

Your Digital Workshop. We build websites and host them, as well as create content for your social media. witty.computer

Edit: the archived page with the marketing description.

I have been working with LLMs for decades. I know what they can do and what they can’t. I admit they have grown in leaps and bounds in the last few years because of the hype, but therein lies the issue: there is still way too much hype, it’s not the end all solution some think it is, it’s driving up hardware prices, the environmental impact is horrendous, and it’s a new bullshit business marketing term that serves only to artificially inflate stock prices. “Agentic” is the new “data driven”.