71–80 of 345 posts
Usually these anti AI outbursts come from designers. This is the first one I've seen coming from a developer. Or at least the first with such salt, bitterness and anger.
From the start, you can see where the author is coming from. This person is some variety of leftist/communist/socialist, and hates AI in the same way that their ilk hates any technology that reduces the need for (some) human labor.
And, to their point, technology does have winners and losers. AI certainly has losers. Developers with this mindset will be among the losers.
I'm more curious about this part - because I'm the opposite. I'm ecstatic that having open source code on github over the last ~12 years means that you have contributed to machine intelligence. What a wild thought and how super cool that everyone who contributed to the internet also gets to contribute to AI.
I can't imagine being upset that your output into the world is accelerated and incorporated into what eventually will be AGI. It's an honor, really.
And obviously I disagree with the rest of the post. But trying to add something useful to the discussion - why are so many people offended that AI is learning from them? Do they see it some other way? As exploitation? But you are the one who put the content out there! If you didn't want others to see and use and learn from your content, it has always been rule #1 that you shouldn't put it online. Is this not drilled into everyone by this point in time?
> These tools will improve ... I don't think this is a good thing.
First time I've heard this one. Who doesn't want the tools to improve? You don't want to have an option to be excluded from the AI training that you were so upset about? You don't want to have an option to get paid for being included in training? You don't want models developed that don't use copyrighted content? You don't want anything to be better?
You want ChatGPT to continue hallucinating forever? You don't want OpenAI to reduce the harm that comes from it hallucinating?
I find it hard to believe that people who are so viciously against AI really mean everything they say. To so confidently state you want the world to halt progress on the most innovative and useful inventions of our time that can measurably improve people's lives is a hot take indeed.
If you don’t want to have what an AI generates then don’t use it. I do agree with the sentiment that the addition of “AI” which goes from a rebrand of what was already there to integration of LLMs is at the moment only somewhat helpful and obtuse. But, really your new systems shouldn’t be thin front ends to gpt4 and instead something far more tangible. Output dashboards or reports or aggregate data. I have my own pro…
> If you don’t want to have what an AI generates then don’t use it. If only it were that easy, the flood of other peoples AI generated content clogs up anywhere its not laboriously moderated out. DeviantArt, for example, has become more or less 99% AI content by volume over the last couple of years and is now basically useless if you're not interested in having a firehose of generic AI images blasted at you. I've see…
Author’s point about environmental cost is a frustration I share. Most people in the tech industry are at least somewhat concerned about the environment but their use and endorsements of technologies don’t follow at all: cloud technologies running in massive over-provisioned datacenters, LLMs consuming more energy than some countries, etc. It’s totally cool to strip mine the Earth, clear cut forests, and burn a bunch…
I strenuously disagree with this. Search has become all but useless in the last few years. LLM's provide a huge jumpstart on understanding, specifically, what to search on to find the canonical data you are after.
But… I disagree with almost everything this person has written.
The output from LLMs can be wrong. It can be inappropriate or misleading. But it is often astonishingly, breathtakingly accurate and leads us to discover connections and conclusions derived from other humans that we would otherwise have missed or spent much longer looking for.
In one regard, LLMs could not be more human : they are after all simply a reflection of ourselves, an entire corpus of human musings, discussions, interactions. So to say that “an AI can’t advise or suggest X Y and Z” when it’s mirroring existing human opinions is misleading at best, or even just plain wrong.