Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The AI Hate Progression

xodium.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 201 posts

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#121

Post by pesus »

hectdev wrote: post #112
pesus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and ignore the stuff you can't be bothered with If this was actually possible, there would be far less backlash to AI. As it stands, it's being forced into every aspect of our lives without consent. Even if you avoid technology as much as possible (which is a good thing), it's still affecting every aspect of society. Even if you avoid technology altogether, you still live in a society full of people who can't or do…

I'm starting to realize this comment section is an echo chamber and dissenting opinions aren't allowed.

People disagreeing with you and discussing something does not mean dissenting opinions aren't allowed. If anything, it proves the opposite.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#122

Post by hectdev »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #116
hectdev wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I see plenty of organic interest growing out there. Even from people who are against it when they see how it can benefit them. It's just a tool that increases productivity at a rate we haven't experienced in a long time. It isn't a shock that it is hyped.

"I see plenty of organic interest growing out there. " I'm certain I don't know where you're looking then because I'm seeing disinterest trending towards outright disgust. Outside bay area tech forums I have yet to encounter a single human being that is in any way enthusiastic about or interested in the capabilities of AI tooling. Without exception every time AI comes up in conversation around here it's someone expre…

At work, with friends, even on dates, oddly enough. But this is a polarizing topic and I don't think any of the discussions here are actually discussions. It's more venting and downvoting anyone who has a different view on all this.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#123

Post by flerchin »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #88
flerchin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference being that stupid-as website was a signal users could filter. "I found that drinking gasoline is actually medicine on 4chan.org" is vastly different than "Gemini suggests drinking gasoline as medicine." One is the open internet being dodgy, the other is google with more resources than God.

Is it though? You should treat everything you see on the Internet with equal skepticism, whether it is on ChatGPT or Reddit or even NYT.

Yeah ok. How does gasoline taste?

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#124

Post by dvt »

jolmg wrote: post #118
dvt wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Following the same logic, is there a fair difference between pure training and reoffering? This is the kind of hair-splitting that I was trying to avoid (because, at the end of the day, there is no functional difference, is md5 okay, maybe Markov chains, just a very simple one-layer perceptron?). Once you take someone's copyrighted work and you do anything with it without consent, you're breaking some implicit trus…

> Once you take someone's copyrighted work and you do anything with it without consent, you're breaking some implicit trust. While I agree there's a parallel, do consider what that trust is with regards to putting up an HTTP server. It's kind of like handing out flyers you made yourself. The server is yours and you're handing out your content on your own. Someone is going around accepting such flyers and putting them…

Funny example, because if you create a flyer, you own the copyright to said flyer :) So if you create a flyer, then if someone else uses that flyer to make money, you can sue them and you will win in court (unless the derived work is transformative, critiques it, yadda yadda). And this is the kind of hair-splitting that can get you into trouble, because I think it's trivial that ChatGPT's training is certainly more transformative than Google's indexing/PageRank, but we're somehow more upset at the latter than we are at the former.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#125

Post by hectdev »

pesus wrote: post #121
hectdev wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to realize this comment section is an echo chamber and dissenting opinions aren't allowed.

People disagreeing with you and discussing something does not mean dissenting opinions aren't allowed. If anything, it proves the opposite.

no, take a look around. comments are downvoted for not agreeing with the topic, not for lack a validity. You, yourself, are ganging up on commenter and painting people with broad strokes. That is quintessentially a space where dissenting opinions aren't allowed.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#126

Post by happytoexplain »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #88
flerchin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference being that stupid-as website was a signal users could filter. "I found that drinking gasoline is actually medicine on 4chan.org" is vastly different than "Gemini suggests drinking gasoline as medicine." One is the open internet being dodgy, the other is google with more resources than God.

Is it though? You should treat everything you see on the Internet with equal skepticism, whether it is on ChatGPT or Reddit or even NYT.

Why on earth should you treat everything anybody says (which is basically the equivalent of saying "everything on the entire internet") with equal skepticism? That's so unrealistic, how could that ever make sense?

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#127

Post by altcognito »

happytoexplain wrote: post #87
altcognito wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The idea of AI is fundamentally tainted" What does this even mean? You don't like machine learning? You don't like the letters AI? There's no coming back to what? Do you work in the tech industry?

>Do you work in the tech industry? I have for 20 years. I use AI every day. And I agree that the parent's observation is plainly true. Your question is hideously condescending. You should examine what disconnect might be putting you in such a bitter-feeling position compared to most people on HN. This does not necessitate that you are wrong - only that you are perhaps not extending an attempt to connect with humans a…

The idea of AI is not tainted.

Public perception of a specific, limited implementation of AI that is over-marketed and overly misapplied may be tainted. Folks who work with technology should have a better estimation for its potential. Even for the grumpy ones, we are generally optimists.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#128

Post by pesus »

hectdev wrote: post #125
pesus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People disagreeing with you and discussing something does not mean dissenting opinions aren't allowed. If anything, it proves the opposite.

no, take a look around. comments are downvoted for not agreeing with the topic, not for lack a validity. You, yourself, are ganging up on commenter and painting people with broad strokes. That is quintessentially a space where dissenting opinions aren't allowed.

My opinions get downvoted all the time. I've seen my own comments fluctuate in real time. Such is the world of online discussion boards.

> You, yourself, are ganging up on commenter and painting people with broad strokes.

No need to complain about "not being allowed to have a dissenting opinion" and then complain about people disagreeing with you. That's not what "ganging up" means. If we're concerned about the HN guidelines, maybe also avoid complaining about downvotes.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#129

Post by spacechild1 »

dvt wrote: post #101
spacechild1 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the author absolutely nails it. Yes, it might not be the most nuanced take, but they express what many of us are thinking. > Google and Yahoo and even DDG have been using copyrighted data for a quarter century, if not longer. Your argument boils down to: companies haven't respected copyright or user consent for a long time, so why should we now care? The answer is: it was wrong back then and it is still wrong now…

> Your argument boils down to: companies haven't respected copyright or user consent for a long time, so why should we now care? This is not a very charitable take. My argument is: that cat is out of the bag, so what do we do next ? Do you have a plan ? Ranting about consent or privacy or copyright won't somehow untrain these models. At least the math people put out the pretty sensible Leiden Declaration[1]. > Don't…

> My argument is: that cat is out of the bag, so what do we do next?

I did not see this argument in your first post at all. Instead you tried to dismiss the author's complaints, arguing that none of their complaints are new. (Which is true in a sense, but it ignores the most important point: that of scale)

> I mean, yeah, sure I do, but ranting about the technology won't somehow put that cat back in the bag, either.

Fair enough, the author did not propose any concrete solutions. However, their analysis is still correct. The first step towards change is to acknowledge that we have a problem. Your first reply did not seem to do that, on the contrary, it seemed to downplay the authors concerns. Maybe that was not your intention, but that's how I read it.

I certainly agree that we need to find solutions. Yes, the cat is out of the bag, but with proper legal frameworks and regulations we can keep it from pissing all over the living room.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#130

Post by jolmg »

dvt wrote: post #124
jolmg wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once you take someone's copyrighted work and you do anything with it without consent, you're breaking some implicit trust. While I agree there's a parallel, do consider what that trust is with regards to putting up an HTTP server. It's kind of like handing out flyers you made yourself. The server is yours and you're handing out your content on your own. Someone is going around accepting such flyers and putting them…

Funny example, because if you create a flyer, you own the copyright to said flyer :) So if you create a flyer, then if someone else uses that flyer to make money, you can sue them and you will win in court (unless the derived work is transformative, critiques it, yadda yadda). And this is the kind of hair-splitting that can get you into trouble, because I think it's trivial that ChatGPT's training is certainly more t…

> then if someone else uses that flyer to make money, you can sue them and you will win in court (unless the derived work is transformative, critiques it, yadda yadda).

Not a lawyer, but 1) consider that sharing flyers is the normal use of the thing, and it's precisely what the business wants, to have their marketing spread to whoever needs them. 2) Doubt there's a law that whatever permission you implicitly granted by personally handing your work is revoked as soon as they find a way to make money from it. 3) This is kind of Groupon's business model: to group coupons (which business flyers also typically are). It benefited the businesses and I don't think Groupon needed to pay the businesses for a copyright license to do them the favor of furthering their marketing. Rather Groupon got better deals from the businesses because Groupon had better reach. They had better reach because people that wanted coupons to save money could just buy the little booklet instead of driving around collecting one or two at different locations.

Post reply on HN