Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really, never? As in never ever?
Yes.
That's a bold claim. In order for that to be true there would have to be some fundamental limitation preventing AI from ever thinking on the level of a human.
I don't want anything your AI generates
161–170 of 345 posts
Re: I don't want anything your AI generates
#162Using chatgpt to generate work email is an amazing opportunity.
It decreases that thought that goes into writing the message and increases the effort on the part of everyone who reads it. It's a 1:N overhead increase.
If people use chatgpt to summarise before reading, the transform will be lossy and the baseline sketchy communication via text picks up a higher error rate. That's also overhead.
Finally because it's easy to create this stuff more will be sent out.
We have an unprecedented increase in operational overhead of corporations that go down this path. Merely by not doing this nonsense you gain a competitive advantage.
Re: I don't want anything your AI generates
#163I'm not a fan of this hyper aggressive line-in-the-sand argumentation about AI that pushes it all precariously close to culture war shenanigans. If you don't like a new technology that is perfectly cool and your right to an opinion. Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. That is NOT at all clear, settled, or even correct m…
This is a bad take, chief. You're not a smol bean. If someone is telling you that the technology you are using is harmful to many people and to society as a whole the least you could do is to make an argument that either those harms are not what is being claimed or that there are significant benefits that outweigh the harms. "Don't say it's bad, that makes me feel bad so we shouldn't talk about it" is both a weak and useless position.
Re: I don't want anything your AI generates
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want anything your statistics generate
Statistically, yeah, you do. Is it that there's numbers and forethought involved that turns you off, or the meta of it all?
I guess you are missing the point. Every great work is an outlier.
Now, the GP is hyperbolic, of course, but statistically safe content isn't great content.
Re: I don't want anything your AI generates
#165> If you're having AI attend a meeting for you, it probably wasn't that important. If you're having AI write your email, it probably wasn't that important. I mean probably but I still have to do unimportant shit to live so might as well have the computer do it.
That’s kind of the point of it too — I just need AI to take care of the unimportant stuff so I can concentrate on the interesting things
While AI makes up things that are sure to make you find them interesting
Re: I don't want anything your AI generates
#166I'm not a fan of this hyper aggressive line-in-the-sand argumentation about AI that pushes it all precariously close to culture war shenanigans. If you don't like a new technology that is perfectly cool and your right to an opinion. Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. That is NOT at all clear, settled, or even correct m…
>Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. Why should you be free of accountability for the effects of your actions?
Because the effects of my actions in this case have yet to be demonstrated, let alone shown to cause harm. The author claims there is expoititive harm to labor, the environment, and maybe others. That is not at all obvious or provably true yet. As I said, I'm open to the discussion, but I can't defend myself in good faith when people claim some slam dunk moral certitude. Again, don't use generative AI if it makes you feel bad, but there is absolutely nothing clear cut yet about this radically brand new technology.
Re: I don't want anything your AI generates
#167"AI output is fundamentally derivative" By that definition, so is all human output. Musicians spend years studying and practicing other people's music before writing their own, painters spend years trying to replicate techniques before mastering their own, programmers spend years reading other people's bugs before authoring their own. All expression of skill is ultimately derivative. Sometimes slightly, sometimes ver…
People act as if we are drowning in War and Peace level masterpieces that AI is going to displace.
There is absolutely nothing going on culturally.
"I am not into all this derivative AI crap. I like the creativity of humans. Do you want to go see Spiderman part 37 or Superman part 22 this weekend?"
We are already a culture that has been displaced by completely uncreative, derivative art and useless gadget making for cash. Maybe someone you can even sell their useless gadget so they can afford to go to some other place and culture full time.
AI is the only hope I have left for this culture.
Re: I don't want anything your AI generates
#168This is not an attitude that will tolerate the changes to come. See: Chrome adding AI to every text field. AI will, at the least, became an extension of creatives - not as something that did the work for them, but that made it possible for them to better create it.
> Chrome adding AI to every text field. Horrifying! I'm going to hazard a guess that it won't be running inference locally... Should we tolerate changes like this?
>Should we tolerate changes like this?
We aren't being given a choice.
But of course, if you refuse to tolerate AI, much less welcome it with open arms, you're just a small-minded Luddite.
Re: I don't want anything your AI generates
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. You, personally, likely are not (apart from electricity use but that's iffy.) But the technology you want to use could not exist, and cannot continue to be improved, without those two things. That's not unclear in the slightest, that's just fact. > I'm open to that conversation and…
Your "steelman" is embarrassingly bad. Why play devil's advocate if you're going to do such a bad job of it? Here's an alternative: - As a form of fair use, models learn styles of art or writing the same way humans do - by seeing lots of examples. It is possible to create outputs that are very similar to existing works, just as a human painter could copy a famous painting. The issue there lies in the output, not the…
> As a form of fair use, models learn styles of art or writing the same way humans do - by seeing lots of examples. It is possible to create outputs that are very similar to existing works, just as a human painter could copy a famous painting. The issue there lies in the output, not the human/model.
I've seen this analogy parroted everywhere and it's garbage. Show me a human being that, in an afternoon, can study the art of Rembrandt and from that experience, paint plausibly Rembrandt style paintings in a few minutes each, and I'll swear by AI for the rest of my life.
Absolute bunk.
> Provide comfortable office jobs for people in economically underdeveloped countries, categorizing data to minimize harm for content moderators worldwide.
... who do you think the content moderators are? It's the same people being paid pittance wages to expose themselves to images of incredible violence, child abuse, non-consensual pornography, etc. etc. etc.
No person should have to look at that to earn a GOOD living, let alone a shit one.
> One piece of training data for a model to filter harmful content can prevent hundreds/thousands of people from being exposed to similar harmful content in the future.
Yeah this is the exact nonsense that is spouted every time you criticize this shit. "Oh all we need to do is absolutely obliterate entire swathes of humanity first, and theeeeeen..." with absolutely zero accounting for the job that has to be done first. And again, I don't see any AI scientists stepping up to page through 6,000 jpegs, some of which depict unspeakable things being done to children, oh no. They find people to do that for them, because they know exactly how unbelievably horrible it is and don't want themselves being exposed to it.
If it's so damn important, why don't YOU do it? If you're going to light someone's humanity on fire to further what you deem to be progress for our species, why not at least have the guts to make it your OWN humanity?
> Reduces or eliminates unpleasant low-skill jobs in call centers, data entry, etc.
And where are those people going? Who's paying them after this? Or are you going to suggest they attend a weekend Learn-to-Code camp too? And who's paying their wages in the middle of that transition, when the skills they have become unmarketable? Who's paying for their retraining? Or are we just consigning entire professions worth of people to the poorhouses now without so much as a thought?
> Creates new creative opportunities in music, video games, writing, and multimedia art by lowering the barriers to entry for creative works.
Derivative works. No matter how much you want to hype this up, AI is not creative. It just isn't. It gives you a rounded mean of previous creations that it has been shown, nothing more. AI will never invent something, in a thousand years it will not. This is why people call AI art soulless.
> For example, an indie video game developer on a shoestring budget could create their own assets, voice actors, etc.
Have you seen those games? They're shit. They're lowest common denominator garbage designed to get hyperactive kids on iPads to badger their parents into spending money.
> Reduces carbon emissions by replacing hours of human labor with seconds of load on a GPU.
So like, this just straight up means you know damn well people are going to die from this. They will be displaced, their labor made worthless, and they will perish. That's just like... what you just said there, because otherwise, the statement "reduces carbon emissions" makes no sense, because if someone gets fired and gets a new job, their carbon emissions do not necessarily go down, and they certainly aren't eliminated.*
Re: I don't want anything your AI generates
#170Would you like AI in a house? Would you like AI with a mouse?