116
The zero-days are numbered | The Mozilla Blog (blog.mozilla.org)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

principled technologists would of course say that the guillotine and beheadings are also technological inevitabilities, so why resist?

I think the difference here is, at least we can use the tech I mentioned defensively. However, using genAI and LLMs is always adding to Jensen Huangs bottom line only, and its a loss to everyone else. You don't happen to be a direct relative? Because otherwise you must feel really ridiculous to do free marketing for him

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Comparing AI to the guillotine is absurd. The guillotine and beheadings would literally only impact 1 single industry, and no other.

    At one point adding electricity meant adding to the bottom line of Thomas Edison and Edison Illuminating Company. Why spend all the money and infrastructure when you are just going to get light when candles work fine? Not to mention how dangerous and ugly electric poles are. Who wants those hovering over their head??

    People literally fought electricity because they were looking too close. If you take a step back, you know when something is a big deal based on what potential impacts it could have on a variety of industries. Same with the internet. People saw the potential, and corporations saw the money. There was a bubble, the bubble popped, and the real potential was left behind. AI bubble will pop at some point, and the genuine application of AI will be left behind and whether we want it to or not, will change the world. The technology exists, and pandoras box has been opened.

    This is not a matter of faster beheadings, this is a matter of a conversational pocket expert with immediate response times at any time of day. The technology will only get better, it will only get more efficient. Nvidia will not hold their power forever. You can separate the technology from the corporations profiting and recognize what will happen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Let's see how wrong your explanation of LLMs is: wrong: -conversational: it only generates the most statistically likely text string to follow. -povcet expert: LLMs have no expertise, it can only regurgitate text strings that are most likely, based on stealing the creative and scientific output of actual experts: humans What isn't wrong is "real time responses", as long as LLM providers decide they provide that, because people using their shitty statistical parrot is costing them their bottom line.

    Anyways, you read like a giant AI-Booster. Did your LLM-Mother write this for you? You can't do Werkimmanenzanalyse on technology! Death of the author cannot apply to actual, society affecting changes. But it's ok, I can just block you for your "Mein AI-Kampf" screed here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    it only generates the most statistically likely text string to follow

    Sure, but if that looks identical to what an ectual expert would say, is there really a difference?

    LLMs have no expertise, it can only regurgitate text strings that are most likely, based on stealing the creative and scientific output of actual experts

    I do agree there is a problem eith AI companies using copyrighted works for training, but couldn't you say the same thing about humans? If I read a book and tell someone else what I learned from that book, did I steal that information? If I pirated the book, yes. If I bought the book, then most people woulf say no.

    as long as LLM providers decide they provide that

    You say this as if we cant self host AI models. The companies don't matter given this fact

    Anyways, you read like a giant AI-Booster

    I can separate greedy tech corporations from the development of new technology. If you denied electricities expansion because the Edison company was greedy, you'd be fighting the existence of electricity in our infrastructure.

    But it’s ok, I can just block you for your “Mein AI-Kampf” screed here.

    That's probably for the best, given how that is an absurd ad hominem that is not related whatsoever to our discussion.

    My main argument is that recognizing AI as a technology is inevitable and revolutionary, is very different from being okay with the AI mega corps, how they are devloping AI, and the environmental impacts of it. AI can be done right, that doesn't mean it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent