141–150 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you make a thing and the thing is going to be inevitably used for a purpose and you could do something about that use and you do not --- then yes, it exists for that purpose, and you are responsible for it being used in that way. you don't get to say "ah well who could have seen this inevitable thing happening? it's a shame nobody could do anything about it" when it was you that could have done something about it.
Yeah. Example: stripper poles. Or hitachi magic wands. Those poles WERE NOT invented for strippers/pole dancers. Ditto for the hitachis. Even now, I'm pretty sure more firemen use the poles than strippers. But that doesn't stop the association from forming. That doesn't make me not feel a certain way if I see a stripper pole or a hitachi magic wand in your living room.
(also: what city? for a friend...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an open source contributor and musician who is not rich, I am pretty stoked about the engineering, scientific and mathematical advancements being made in my lifetime. I have only become more creatively enabled when adopting these tools, and while I share the existential dread of becoming unemployable, I also am wearing machine-fabricated clothing and enjoying a host of other products of automation. I do not have s…
> I also am wearing machine-fabricated clothing and enjoying a host of other products of automation. I'm not really a fan of the "you criticize society yet you participate in it" argument. >I understand that one day this era will be history and society will be as integrated with AI as we are with other transformative technologies. You seem to forget the blood shed over the history that allowed that tech to benefit th…
> I'm not really a fan of the "you criticize society yet you participate in it" argument.
It seems to me that GP is merely recognizing the parts of technological advance that they do find enjoyable. That's rather far from the "I am very intelligent" comic you're referencing.
> The very least you can do is not impede those trying to fight for those futures if you can't/don't want to fight yourself.
Just noting that GP simply voiced their opinion, which IMHO does not constitute "impedance" of those trying to fight for those futures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, but zero chance of that happening unfortunately.
well practiced cynicism is boring. imo there are actually too few answers for what a better path would even look like. hard to move forward when you don't know where you want to go. answers in the negative are insufficient, as are those that offer little more than nostalgia.
It's just not a well thought out comment. If we focus on the "better path forward", the entrance to which is only unlocked by the realisation that big techs achievements (and thus, profits) belong to humanity collectively... After we reach this enlightened state, what does op believe the first couple of things a traveller on this path is likely to encounter (beyond Big Techs money, which incidentally we take loads of already in the form of taxes, just maybe not enough)?
> There’s an extremely hurtful narrative going around that my product, a revolutionary new technology that exists to scam the elderly and make you distrust anything you see online, is harmful to society The article is certainly interesting as yet another indicator of the backlash against AI, but I must say, “exists to scam the elderly” is totally absurd. I get that this is satire, but satire has to have some basis in…
The article names a lot of other things that AI is being used for besides scamming the elderly, such as making us distrust everything we see online, generating sexually explicit pictures of women without their consent, stealing all kinds of copyrighted material, driving autonomous killer drones and more generally sucking the joy out of everything. And I think I'm inclined to agree. There are a small amount of things…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really implying that generative AI doesn't enable things that were not previously possible?
Name some then! I initially scoffed too but I can only think of stuff LLM’s make easier not things that were impossible previously.
People seemingly have some very odd views on products when it comes to AI.
For those having trouble finding the humor, it lies in the vast gulf between grand assertions that LLMs will fundamentally transform every aspect of human life, and plaintive requests to stop saying mean things about it.
As a contrast: truly successful products obviate complaints. Success speaks for itself. In TV, software, e-commerce, statins, ED pills, modern smartphones, social media, etc… winning products went into the black quickly and made their companies shitloads of money (profits). No need to adjust vibes, they could just flip everyone the bird from atop their mountains of cash. (Which can also be pretty funny.)
There are mountains of cash in LLMs today too, but so far they’re mostly on the investment side of the ledger. And industry-wide nervousness about that is pretty easy to discern. Like the loud guy with a nervous smile and a drop of sweat on his brow.
So much of the current discourse around AI is the tech-builders begging the rest of the world to find a commercially valuable application. Like the AgentForce commercials that have to stoop to showing Matthew McConaughey suffering the stupidest problems imaginable. Or the OpenAI CFO saying maybe they’ll make money by taking a cut of valuable things their customers come up with. “Maybe someone else will change the world with this, if you’ll all just chill out” is a funny thing to say repeatedly while also asking for $billions and regulatory forbearance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> True, but no more true than it is if you replace the antecedent with "people". Incorrect. People are capable of learning by observation, introspection, and reasoning. LLMs can only be trained by rote example. Hallucinations are, in fact, an unavoidable property of the technology - something which is not true for people. [0] [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11817
What you (and the authors) call "hallucination," other people call "imagination." Also, you don't know very many people, including yourself, if you think that confabulation and self-deception aren't integral parts of our core psychological makeup. LLMs work so well because they inherit not just our logical thinking patterns, but our faults and fallacies.
it's not a person, it doesn't hallucinate or have imagination
it's simply unreliable software, riddled with bugs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really implying that generative AI doesn't enable things that were not previously possible?
Can you name one thing generative AI enables that wasn't previously possible?
This line of thinking is ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot... "by stealing from artists and writers at scale".
well if all the talent is stolen and put into our water destruction machine we can make significantly worse and more expensive versions of just giving the job to a wagey