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

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#191

Post by joquarky »

benterix wrote: post #169
runarberg wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is a terrible name anyway and I am glad people have stopped calling stuff like supervised learning, or Markov Chains AI . I think it is better if it just sticks to this awful technology of LLMs and imagegen and will be dropped everywhere else for a better term. We can readopt Machine Learning for the other algorithms, which is significantly better, but still not without flaws. I hope we go further down and just sa…

It would be nice but I have no illusions, it won't happen.

In my experience, people like GP will burnout on idealism right around their mid-40s.

The dark night of the soul will be sublime.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#192

Post by joquarky »

danaris wrote: post #120
comrade1234 wrote: post #29

I have a coworker that irrationally hated ai too. He says something about how his daughter and friends' hobby is jailbreaking ai. We have a product used in call centers. It turns out ai is amazing in triaging (surveying) people. We can ask a question in English and if they respond n another language (any language) the ai will switch to that language, ask its questions, and then give us the answers in English. This wa…

Well, it will give you something in English. You don't actually know that it's a) asking them the questions you asked, rather than just something it hallucinated that seemed plausible in their language, or b) relaying to you a translation of their answers, rather than just something it hallucinated that seems plausible in English. Because LLMs will always, always, always hallucinate. They are not reliable, and this i…

I can feel the spittle coming off of this comment.

You're not going to convince anyone here. We know they are not reliable, but we can still stochasticity extract value.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#193

Post by joquarky »

dvt wrote: post #102
jolmg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there really is a fair difference between pure indexing and reoffering. Following the same logic, is there a fair difference between pure training and reoffering? > I am sure there are people who'd object to even being indexed but most niche communities were pretty rabid about getting more visibility to find more members. Here the logic seems to be: it's OK as long as they derive some kind of benefit from i…

> 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…

How does copyright maximalism promote the progress of science and the useful arts?

The pendulum has swung so high that it's going to break on the return.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#194

Post by ariedro »

solaire_oa wrote: post #21

For a period of time, I was graphing HN AI sentiment on BULL/BEAR LOVE/HATE axes. https://r5d.me/vibeschism/ The mania and lament continues at full speed, I suppose. And related to the brazen contempt for consent: https://r5d.me/robots.txt I like the article's sentiment, but a do-over sounds... unrealistic. Sadly, this is very common with the lamentation links, where the article accurately describes the problems at h…

Have you considered that many of the bull/love comments might be from bots?

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#195

Post by Henchman21 »

clapthewind wrote: post #160
Henchman21 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, the courts in the US rubber-stamped it as “transformative work” and allowed the theft of literally everything to stand, while establishing a legal precedent that everything they did was A-OK.

Just because it didn't meet your preferred outcome does not mean it was rubberstamped. The truth is that it is transformative.

How so? How did stealing the entire works of humanity act as “transformative”? Please, this is a serious question I just don’t see it. Perhaps my mind only acknowledges the theft of the sum of human works for private gain.

Also my preferred outcome isn’t knownto you or to me. My feelings on this subject aren’t clear at all and the reports I’ve read were probably all pushing their point of view.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#196

Post by hectdev »

civet_java wrote: post #186
hectdev wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you'll find that even spaces most open to discussion and dissent will push back on certain topics such genocide, murder, rape, etc. These are things most people would agree are bad. I'm not saying that AI is like those things but that as society tallies the cost-to-benefit ratio public opinion on AI trends closer and closer to negative; most people are realising that ripping a big old hole in our social fabri…

Boiling down AI to faster emails and listing out those horrible things and trying to side step it as not equivocating are both really disingenuous arguments.

AI can and has already shown to be really helpful in emerging medicines and medical break throughs. Should we just throw that out with everything else based on the argument of the article that it is annoying that people are hyped about a new technology?

The tally of society hasn't been set and I would urge you to understand that the opinions online formed in echo chambers don't represent the majority.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#197

Post by civet_java »

hectdev wrote: post #196
civet_java wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll find that even spaces most open to discussion and dissent will push back on certain topics such genocide, murder, rape, etc. These are things most people would agree are bad. I'm not saying that AI is like those things but that as society tallies the cost-to-benefit ratio public opinion on AI trends closer and closer to negative; most people are realising that ripping a big old hole in our social fabri…

Boiling down AI to faster emails and listing out those horrible things and trying to side step it as not equivocating are both really disingenuous arguments. AI can and has already shown to be really helpful in emerging medicines and medical break throughs. Should we just throw that out with everything else based on the argument of the article that it is annoying that people are hyped about a new technology? The tall…

> Boiling down AI to faster emails and listing out those horrible things and trying to side step it as not equivocating are both really disingenuous arguments.

I agree with your statement in isolation but it doesn't describe why I wrote what I did. The point of listing out the horrible things is that there are many things most people agree are horrible and won't entertain conversation about them in interest of giving room to dissenting voices. So, complaining about how a "gang of commentors" wouldn't let you express your opinions without them pushing back isn't a meaningful complaint.

> AI can and has already shown to be really helpful in emerging medicines and medical break throughs.

That's great! I'm not opposed to this and I think you'll find that most other commentors "ganging up" against you aren't either. But I think you'll also find that tools such as coding harnesses and image generation systems don't quite qualify as medicine. Nor does the use of AI in medicine have major social repurcussions.

> opinions online formed in echo chambers don't represent the majority.

Right back at ya buddy :)

It's interesting that you prop up benefits but fail to address the harms of AI. Is it that you think there are none? Or do you not care because they don't affect you?

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#198

Post by hbd-investor »

pibaker wrote: post #153
lbrito wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because in China they have a functioning government that enacted laws protecting workers against AI job displacement, while in the west we have shithead CEOs screaming "AI is coming for your job, like it or not" and companies laying off thousands of people with AI washing. Just a wild guess

Very hard to believe that a government that stopped publishing unemployment data is the one to side with workers.

This is misinformation China has not stopped publishing unemployment data

They stopped publishing Youth unemployment data, Youth unemployment data is categorized as age range 16-24 and currently not enrolled in education.

The reason why they stopped publishing this data was because it was extraordinarily high. This is due to the large number of engineers, technical graduates, and China's large numbers of high tech companies.

This is because technical/high tech interviews aren't 1 day things especially in china, but they take months and have 5+ , 10+ rounds of interviews and examinations. In the technical world you can't just say I know Abelian groups, C++, CFD, etc... They need a senior engineer to test and grill you, they need to give you actual problems and see how you approach and tackle them.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#199

Post by spencerflem »

neonstatic wrote: post #162
spencerflem wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core idea of capitalism is that you spend money to make more money. Rich get richer is the basic idea, you invest and those investments make you more. It very necessarily leads to oligarchy when left unchecked.

The core ideas of capitalism are private property and free market, not "rich getting richer". > It very necessarily leads to oligarchy when left unchecked. Great, let's not leave it unchecked. Unlike other -isms, capitalism does not need to be treated like an ideology to work. Also, maybe let's not attribute obvious failures of the political system to the underlying economic system.

You can have free markets without investments, which imo is the key differentiator between Capitalism and what came before. That’s what ‘capital’ is in capitalism.

In fact, capitalism tends to trend towards monopoly which is the opposite of a free market. Investing in a monopoly tends to be a Very Good Idea for investors but we want a free market so we go against the ideals of capitalism to break up firms and limit acquisitions.

Once you can invest and reliably make money invested by its very nature you get Rich-Get-Richer.

You can say this is a fine trade off for the benefits if you like, but it’s pretty well baked into the design. IMO we don’t have to go all the way to some other -ism either but we have a trillionaire that bought the government, that’s waaaayy too much capitalism if you ask me

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#200

Post by Varelion »

joquarky wrote: post #189
bigyabai wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their point seems pretty clear? They aren't passionate about their job, they're pissing away AI-generated productivity to fill OKRs and collect a paycheck at the end of the week. Then, knowing how the sausage is made, this person refuses to spend that paycheck on more AI-generated content. They are sabotaging their employer, forcing reconsideration of AI-first culture, and then refusing to re-integrate that cash into…

It feels unethical to gloat when thousands of people are desperately looking for work in the industry.

Didn't get a message about this. I am not / was not / never would gloat about something like this. The amount of times I heard my wife say, "She is really talented, I am sure she will get something soon", while I searched and got nothing for there years left a scar in my heart.

It is worsened by the fact she, too, now, has been unemployed.

The status-quo is awful. Leeches in C-suite doing everything they can to squeeze pennies from the people, leveraging their capital to in turn abuse those in other countries.

The world needs to come together and cap how much value can be retained without reinvesting it back into the lifeblood of society.

Post reply on HN