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

I Am An AI Hater

anthonymoser.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 515 posts

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#181

Post by dragonwriter »

randcraw wrote: post #23
jkingsman wrote: post #8

I appreciate seeing this point of view represented. It's not one I personally hold, but it is one a LOT of my friends hold, and I think it's important that it be given a voice, even if -- perhaps especially if -- a lot of people disagree with it. One of my friends sent me a delightful bastardization of the famous IBM quote: A COMPUTER CAN NEVER FEEL SPITEFUL OR [PASSIONATE†]. THEREFORE A COMPUTER MUST NEVER CREATE AR…

Picasso's Guernica was born of hate, his hate of war, of dehumanization for petty political ends. No computer will ever empathize with the senseless inhumanity of war to produce such a work. It must forever parrot.

> No computer will ever empathize with the senseless inhumanity of war to produce such a work.

Neither will a paintbrush.

The tool does need to, though.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#182

Post by [deleted] »

myhf wrote: post #96
danielbln wrote: post #12

Yet it is here to stay, won't go away and even if it won't get any better at the useful things it does, it is useful. The externalities are real, some can be removed, some mitigated. If you're a hater and a human, then you don't have to mitigate anything, of course. Me, I hate the externalities, but I love the thing. I want to use my own AI, hyper optimized and efficient and private. It would mitigate a lot. Maybe so…

> the useful things it does It's weird how AI-lovers are always trying to shoehorn an unsupported "it does useful things" into some kind of criticism sandwich where only the solvable problems can be acknowledged as problems. Just because some technologies have both upsides and downsides doesn't mean that every technology automatically has upsides. GenAI is good at generating these kinds of hollow statements that mimi…

[deleted]

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#183

Post by schwartzworld »

dpoloncsak wrote: post #111

> Critics have already written thoroughly about the environmental harms, the reinforcement of bias and generation of racist output, the cognitive harms and AI supported suicides, the problems with consent and copyright... This paragraph really pisses me off and I'm not sure why. > Critics have already written thoroughly about the environmental harms Didn't google just prove there is little to no environmental harm, I…

> Didn't google just prove there is little to no environmental harm

I'd be interested to see that report as I'm not able to find it by Googling, ironically. Even so, this goes against pretty much all the rest of the reporting on the subject, AND Google has financial incentive to push AI, so skepticism is warranted.

> I don't ask a lot of race-based questions to my LLMS I guess

The reality is that more and more decision making is getting turned over to AIs. Racism doesn't have to just be n-words and maga hats. For example, this article talks about how overpoliced neighborhoods trigger positive feedback loops in predictive AIs https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2024/07/racism-and-ai-bias-...

> Copyright never stopped me from saving images or pirating movies.

I think we could all agree that right-clicking a copyrighted image and saving it is pretty harmless. Less harmless is trying to pass that image off as something you created and profiting from it. If I use AI to write a blog post, and that post contains plagiarism, and I profit off that plagiarism, it's not harmless at all.

> I also grew up being told that ANYTHING on the internet was for the public

Who told you that? How sure are you they are right?

Copilot has been shown to include private repos in its training data. ChatGPT will happily provide you with information that came from textbooks. I personally had SunoAI spit out a song that whose lyrics were just Livin' On A Prayer with a couple of words changed.

We can talk about the ethical implications of the existence of copyright and whether or not it _should_ exist, but the fact is that it does exist. Taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own without giving credit or permission is not permitted.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#184

Post by eaglelamp »

petralithic wrote: post #139
eaglelamp wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you dig deep enough isn’t the same thing true of people like yourself? Do you truly believe that the large language models we currently have, not some fantasy AI of the distant future, are emotional and intellectual beings? Or, are you more interested in the short term economic gains of using them? Does this invalidate your beliefs? I don’t think so, most everyday beliefs are related to economic conditions. How co…

When did I say I believe AI to be intelligent or emotional? Of course I use it for economic factors, but I'm honest about it, not wrapping it up in some intellectual, solipsizing arguments. I'm not even sure what non-economic arguments you're talking about, my point is that at the end of the day most people care about the economic impact it might have on them, not anything about the technology itself.

I don’t think the author is hiding his economic anxiety behind solipsism. He states plainly he doesn’t like the deskilling of work.

My point is why are your economic motivations valid while his aren’t?

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#185

Post by petralithic »

s1mplicissimus wrote: post #170
petralithic wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A human might generate a piece of media using AI (either via a slot machine spin or with more advanced workflows like ComfyUI) and once they deem it looks good enough for their purpose, they might display it to represent what they want it to represent. If Guernica was AI generated but still displayed by Picasso as a statement about war, it would still be art. Tools do not dictate what art is and isn't, it is about th…

Agreed, tools do not dictate what art is and isn't - but using those tools for art doesn't relieve them from being ethically justified. If generating the piece costs half a rain forest or requires tons of soul crushing badly paid work by others, it might be well worth considering what is the general framework the artist operates in. Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered…

There are tons of examples of art that take much more energy than what an AI does, such as an architectural monument. It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethically sourced but people still used them and some still do, such as mummy brown, Indian yellow, or ivory black, all from living organisms.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#186

Post by jacobsenscott »

sindriava wrote: post #132
dpoloncsak wrote: post #111

> Critics have already written thoroughly about the environmental harms, the reinforcement of bias and generation of racist output, the cognitive harms and AI supported suicides, the problems with consent and copyright... This paragraph really pisses me off and I'm not sure why. > Critics have already written thoroughly about the environmental harms Didn't google just prove there is little to no environmental harm, I…

I appreciate this response. The environmental impact is such a red herring it's not even funny. Somehow these statements never include the impact of watching Netflix shows or doing data processing manually.

Uh, we've been doing data processing for nearly 80 years, and watching netflix for nearly 20 years. Suddenly we need to tile the earth with data centers, build power plants, burn all the fuels we can, and will "need to get to fusion" (per Sam) to run AGI. He also said "if we need to burn a little more gas to get there, that's fine". We'll never get to fusion or AGI, but we will destroy the earth to put a few more dollars in the pockets of the 0.01%.

You don't see the difference, or are you willfully ignorant?

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#187

Post by yahoozoo »

indoordin0saur wrote: post #167

I'm certainly on the "AI is over-hyped" bus, so was excited to read this but the links to very fringe political websites at the beginning makes me question the judgement of the author.

You mean the New Socialist isn’t a credible, unbiased authority on why on AI is fascist?

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#189

Post by perching_aix »

jacquesm wrote: post #162
perching_aix wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then why wouldn't AI generated art be able to stir me? Why is a human being in the loop so important as to be supposedly essential?

Because it is mimicking human input. Effectively you are getting a mixture of many pieces of artwork that humans made distilled down into some sloppy new one that was made without feeling, purpose or skill and that can be described by its prompt, a few kilobytes at best. Original human art can only be approximated but never captured with 100% fidelity regardless of the bitrate, that is what makes it unique to begin w…

I think this is a reasonable counter in some respects, although I do also think it's specific to the current iteration of AI art.

It's a bit like when people describe how models don't have a will or the likes. Of course they don't, "they" are basically frozen in time. Training is way slower than inference, and even inference is often slower than "realtime". It just doesn't work that way from the get-go. They're also simply not very good - hence why they're being fed curated data.

In that sense, and considering history, I can definitely see why it would (and should?) be considered differently. Not sure this is what you meant, but this is an interesting lens, so thanks for this.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#190

Post by simianwords »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #21
holbrad wrote: post #18

>Critics have already written thoroughly about the environmental harms, the reinforcement of bias and generation of racist output, the cognitive harms and AI supported suicides, the problems with consent and copyright, I just can't take anything the author has to say seriously after the intro.

And that's why Trump won the election. I'm serious. This sentence perfectly captures what the coastal cities sound like to the rest of the US, and why they voted for the crazy uncle over something unintelligible.

Coastal city dwellers want the next thing to signal rebellion. Its just that AI serves as a way to do that plus also show some concern to the working class.
Post reply on HN