Sally Strange

@joe seems pretty clear to me.

-“AI” isn’t inevitable
-people who claim otherwise are mostly doing marketing for products in which they’re invested
-experts on “AI” should include more than those employed by the companies trying to make a profit off it

Yudkowsky was not a non sequitur; you were asked which experts you consult, you then refused to name any, so your interlocutor tried speculating about who might qualify for you.

Hope this helps, Joe!

@XLE

@joe they are not separable. Just like concerns about fair compensation for visual artists and writers are inseparable from “AI”.

Noted: my question remains unanswered.

@joe if it’s a tool for doctors to use then it will simply increase the costs of providing care even if there is an increase in the quality of that care. That means adoption of that particular type of “AI” will be limited. If it’s possible to replace doctors with a chatbot, that will decrease costs even if the quality of care also decreases.

Which one do you think is more likely to be widely used in a profit-driven, anti-human system?

@mobyduck648

@Nouvellalia aw look at you, complaining about being bullied by gamgam. That’s adorable.

>It should be open source and given back to the people.”

What should be open source? Machine learning to detect cancer? Absolutely. Generative CSAM? How about no? By failing to distinguish between the different things lumped under the marketing lie that’s is “AI,” you promote and defend Grok, ChatGPT, Claude, etc.

Re: tagging people: that’s my handle. I’m accessing Lemmy via my Mastodon account, the software does that automatically.

@Nouvellalia

“Rancid oligarchs and zombie corpos should not be allowed to pillage from our air, water, and soil. Attacking ai specifically for this solves nothing.”

And what does defending and promoting “AI” (which is a marketing lie since there is no intelligence involved) do to prevent oligarchs and corpos from pillaging our natural resources?

@Nouvellalia @7101334 funny how really the only argument AI boosters can make with regards to its environmental impact is “what about all the other stuff that is worse”. What about it? What about that? Look over there! Yes I’ve been concerned about all those things, for many years, because I’ve been concerned about climate change, for many years. You haven’t?

@Nouvellalia @7101334
> Farming, fishing, and electricity inherently degrade our planet far more than AI.

Inherently? It’s just a matter of time.

@garbage_world @lobut username checks out

@CheeseNoodle @MangoCats so like 20 watts of power? Yes that seems fair

@Doomsider @stickyprimer people are going to make AI into a religion regardless. We did it with books when they were first invented.