all 71 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago

I still favor a real person when I need tech support.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's like reading an article about a petrol refining company, who, having prior experience with gasoline as a useful and profitable substance, decides to seek venture capital for the development of a petrol-based fire-extinguisher. They obtain the funding - presumably because some people with money just wants to see the world burn and / or because being rich and having brains is not necessarily strongly correlated - but after having developed the product, tests conclusively prove the project's early detractors right: The result is surprisingly always more fire, not less. And they "don't know how to fix it, while still adhering to the vision of a petrol-based fire-extinguisher".

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Nah, you could definitely make one. Ensure the petrol is completely aerosolized, so that it burns completely and quickly. Now it just needs to be able to burn oxygen out of a room faster than it can get in. Or it could use the burning petrol to generate coumpounds and co2 to suffocate the fire. Get yourself basically a petrol powered weedeater and replace the rope with some sort of heat dissipater. As it spin its shoots the heat elsewhere, somewhere safer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    Those are some interesting and creative suggestions. Now, I'm no weapons engineer, but I believe there's a term for aerosolized gasoline when deployed to put out a fire, and that term is "thermobaric bomb".

    Never mind that though, it'll totally work: Not only is a building that no longer exists not a building on fire, but it's guaranteed to never catch fire again. Problem permanently solved. If you're in the market for a job, I've been told that Hellfire ("We may not put you out, but we'll definitely put you down") Inc. is hiring.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    As much as I despise all the hype around AI, it's that hype that's probably leading vulnerable people to these ends

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Papers gotta get clicks. Maybe capitalism is the real villain here.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I wonder if it has something to do with this:

    "users who turn to popular chatbots when exhibiting signs of severe crises risk"

    Blaming the chatbot doesn't seem like the smartest perspective, the title is fucking bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (56 children)

    So, it’s not ChatGPT, it’s all LLMs. And the people who go through this are using AI wrong. You cannot blame the tool because some people prompt it to make them crazy.

  • source
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (19 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    It will give you whatever you want. Just like social media and google searches. The information exists.

    When you tell it to give you information in a way you want to hear it, you’re just talking to yourself at that point.

    People should probably avoid giving it prompts that fuel their mania. However, since mania is totally subjective and the topics range broadly, what does an actual regulation look like?

    What do you use AI for?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (16 children)

    Yeah, because someone in a manic state can definitely be trusted to carefully analyze their prompts to minimize bias.

    What do you use AI for?

    I don’t.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    So… you have no clue at all what any of this is. Got it. I’ll bet you blame video games for violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Yeah, because video games are definitely the same as a search engine that tells you all your delusions are real.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Tell me more about how you’ve never ever used it and that everything you’re saying is influenced by the media and other anti-ai user comments.

    Let’s see what happens when I google for UFOs or chemtrails or deep state or anti-vaccine, etc. how much user created delusional content will I find?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)

    Lmao, I never said I’ve never touched AI I just don’t use it for anything because it doesn’t do anything useful for me.

    Yes, delusional content on Google is also a problem. But you have to understand how delusional content tailored uniquely to the individual fed to them by a sycophantic chatbot is several times more dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)

    Oh, well that explains everything, you are using it wrong.

    A lot of people think that you’re supposed to argue with it and talk about things that are subjective or opinion based. But that’s ridiculous because it’s a computer program.

    ChatGPT and others like it are calculators. They help you brainstorm problems. Ultimately, you are responsible for the outcome.

    There’s a phrase I like to use at work when junior developers complain the outcome is not how they wanted it: shit in shit out.

    So next time you use AI, perhaps consider are you feeding it shit? Because if you’re getting it, you are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Again, I’m not fucking using it.

    I played with it when it was new but it doesn’t do anything useful, I’m perfectly capable of brainstorming on my own.

    Back to the topic at hand, do you not see how helping someone brainstorm their delusions with a sycophantic chatbot could be dangerous?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    So today I had it do a bunch of fractional math on dimensional lumber at the hardware store. While it was doing this math for me it asked if this was for the guitar project I was working on in another chat, where I was mostly asking about magnetic polarity and various electronic, and yes it was. So then it made a different suggestion for me, which made a big impact on what I bought. I know that’s vague, but it was a long conversation.

    Then, when I got home my neighbor had left a half dead plant on my stoop because I’m the neighborhood green thumb apparently. I had never seen this plant before. Took a photo, sent it to AI, and it told me what it was (yes, with sources).

    Then while I was 3d modeling some shelf brackets, it helped my design by pointing out a possible weight distribution issue. While correcting that, I was able to reduce material usage by like 30%.

    I don’t see any of that as “delusional”

    But to the topic at hand, I think the conversations groups and pairs of humans have, both online and real life, will always be more damaging that what a single person can trick a computer into saying.

    And by tricking it… you are abusing a tool designed for a different purpose. So, kitchen knives. Not meant to be murder weapons, certainly can be used for that purpose. Should we blame the knife?

    I also had it make you this image:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    I’m not saying you’re delusional, you seem to have completely lost the thread of this conversation in your defense of chatbots.

    My point is someone who is already prone to delusional thinking will be sent down a feedback loop of affirming their delusions making things much worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    I haven’t lost anything, I’m just not agreeing with you.

    I think that if a person is suffering from mental issues that they can get the justification for their delusions regardless of AI. While it does provide some immediate access to information that they may interpret unhealthily, it is not unlike participating in social media within an echo chamber—which I would argue does more damage.

    I will give you one thing though… I think more publicly available (ChatGPT) AI models need to cut off topics at a certain point and just refuse to go any further without forcefully inserting warning messages about getting professional help—but we could say the same thing about social media, haha.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Sure, but by its very nature AI cares more about saying what you want to hear than what is true.

    Further, the problem of AI hallucinations has no solution at this time which can be very dangerous depending on who’s using it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Yes but social media is far worse for that, so you’re sort of yelling at clouds here.

    How about this: anyone who doesn’t use ai for its intended purpose is banned from the system? 😅

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    What exactly is its intended purpose? AI companies advertise it as doing anything and everything.

    I agree though , social media is absolutely a problem. But social media being a problem doesn’t mean other things can’t also be problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Lots of things are advertised beyond their capabilities. Especially if people use them wrong.

    AI isn’t bad. People are bad. Giving people AI is just one tool in a sea of millions of tools than can be misused. Focusing on it as the issue is ignoring the actual problem.

    Is there a specific personal event that brought you to your opinion of AI, or is it mostly just stuff in the media?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I wouldn’t even rank it as a tool, as tools are usually supposed to be useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Well this goes back to you not knowing how to use it, because you refuse to learn, and therefore you feel it is useless. When it is, in fact, very useful as I have shown. You are yelling at the clouds because you have some kind of bias against it that is fixed in stone.

    Do you miss the rotary phone? ;)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (33 children)

    But you can blame the overly eager way it has been made available without guidance, restriction, or regulation. The same discussion applies to social media, or tobacco, or fossil fuels: the companies didn't make anyone use it for self destruction, but they also didn't take responsibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    First nuanced argument I've seen on this topic. Great point. Just like bottle manufacturers started the litter bug campaign. I think the problem with llm's has to do with profit-motive as well - specifically broad data sets with conflicting shit, like the water bunny next to general relativity made for broad appeal. AI gets a lot more useful when you curate it for a specific purpose. Like, I dunno. Trying influence elections or check consistency between themes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    Kitchen knife manufacturers, razor blades, self-help books, Helter Skelter, the list of things that people can “use wrong” is endless.

    PEBCAK

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It isnt exactly unheard of for regulations to be placed in the design, sale, or labeling of stuff because of misuse, to be fair. Even assuming the fault of using a tool wrong is with the user, assigning blame does not actually do anything about the problem. If enough people consistently misuse a thing in a certain way, there can be a general social benefit to trying to stop that type of misuse even if the people misusing it "are the problem", and since those people clearly arent going to just start using the thing properly just because someone pointed the finger of blame at them, addressing the problem is likely to take some kind of design or systemic change to make it more difficult for them to use that tool in that way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Kitchen knife, razor blades are a different category, for self-help books also. LLM is completely different category and there is no point of comparing knife to an llm besides to do a relativization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    The tools are relative. Pick a tool. It can be used wrong. You are special pleading, dogmatism, intellectual dishonesty.

    If you’re going to refuse entire categories of tools then we are down to comparing AI to AI, which is a pointless conversation and I want no part of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It's not about banning or refusing AI tools, it's about making them as safe as possible and regulating their usage.

    Your argument is the equivalent of "guns don't kill people" or blaming drivers for Tesla's so-called "full self-driving" errors leading to accidents, because "full self-driving" switches itself off right before the accident, leaving the driver responsible as the one who should have paid more attention, even if there was no time left for him to react.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    So what kind of regulations would be put in place to prevent people from using ai to feed their mania?

    I’m open to the idea, but I think it’s such a broad concept at this point that implementation and regulation would be impossible.

    If you want to go down the guns don’t kill people assumption, fine: social media kills more people and does more damage and should be shut down long before AI. 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Probably the same kind of guardrails that they already have - teaching LLMs to recognise patterns of potentially harmful behaviour. There's nothing impossible in that. Shutting LLMs down altogether is a straw man and extreme example fallacy, when the discussion is about regulation and guardrails.

    Discussing the damage LLMs do does not, of course, in any way negate the damage that social media does. These are two different conversations. In the case of social media there's probably government regulation needed, as it's clear by now that the companies won't regulate themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Okay so it has guardrails already. Make them better. Government regulations can’t be specific enough for the daily changing AI environment.

    I’d say AI has a lot more self regulation than social media.

    But, I run ai on bare metal at home. This isn’t chatGPT. And it will, in theory, do anything I want it to. Would you tell me that I can’t roll my own mania machine? Get out of my house lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Naturally the guardrails cannot cover absolutely every possible specific use case, but they can cover most of the known potentially harmful scenarios under the normal, most common circumstances. If the companies won't do it themselves, then legislation can push them to do it, for example making them liable, if their LLM does something harmful. Regulating AI is not anti-AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I feel the guardrails are in place, and that they will be continuously improved. If a person finds a situation where an AI suggests they kill themselves without being prompted, say, during a brainstorm about strawberry cake consistency—if you were dead you wouldn’t have this problem—would be… concerning.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    If you’re going to refuse entire categories of tools then we are down to comparing AI to AI, which is a pointless conversation and I want no part of it.

    The point is not to compare but analyze how AI affects us and the world around us, society. By saying "it's just a tool", or "knives can also be missuesd" you relativize discussion and that rethoric just contributes to defending openAI and other big techs and even helping them banalize the issue.

    From what i witnessed is that people lose agency, get and belive fake info, everything becoming slop, people loosing jobs getting replace by more workers that are less payed etc.

    EDIT: And no it's not the same as knife or razor or a gun, it will never be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    You could say the same about social media and the entire internet. Would you choose to regulate that?

    I recall in the mid 90s a group of people on the street corner protesting AOL (America OnLine) and saying the internet should be stopped.

    They may have had a point, but the technology wasn’t to blame for the shit that’s it’s used for.

    The vague way you talk about AI makes be think that you don’t know much about it. what do you use AI for? Is it ChatGPT?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    You could say the same about social media and the entire internet. Would you choose to regulate that?

    Yes, fediverse is imo good(not great) model of regulation by the network(s) itself.

    I recall in the mid 90s a group of people on the street corner protesting AOL (America OnLine) and saying the internet should be stopped. They were right.

    The vague way you talk about AI makes be think that you don’t know much about it. what do you use AI for? Is it ChatGPT?

    I use it small ammount most for translation and generating names for projects all locally.

    The point is llms can steer you in harmful direction, there is much hype around it, the effects on labour, effects on human agency and knowledge etc. The power is in big tech not in some communities that use AI for their needs, but the big tech creating needs and solutions to fullfill them via advertisment, hyping it etc. That is the point of discussion not if I used it or not, or to compare it with knife or social media(that is better comparison but still) etc.

    Do you think llms are that much beneficial to society or not ? What effects you see from llms in society ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    I think it would be easier to ask you why you are not using it? You’re aware of its issues, which means you won’t fall victim to them. You would only get the benefits. Have you tried the newer models of ChatGPT? They are worlds beyond GPT 3.5 or Llama 3.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I don't use online only local ones. So do you want to say how you see efects of llm on society ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I see the effects of tools used improperly. It’s just another computer program. There’s nothing special about AI. The good and bad are way over hyped.

    What does significantly more damage is social media. It’s laughable that people think LLMs are even a dent in “society.”

    I can use an image manipulation program for harm, does that make it bad for society?

    USERS are the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    USERS are the problem.

    No they aren't, system(capitalism) is the problem. The llm work as intended, corpos can just market it anyway they want, hype people and collect money even with llm content is actually shitier, info you learn is shittier, everything is shittier. And of course point you seem to avoid but my guess is you will also blame it on the "users" is people loosing jobs due to llms, and actually people working more and payed less also due to llm.

    It’s laughable that people think LLMs are even a dent in “society.”

    It is, as i said people loosing jobs, loosing agency, learning shit info etc. Social networks afaik didn't have kind of impact, of course shitty info yes and also AI amplified that shitty info intake via algorithm to keep people glued to the screen.

    The uses are not the problem, capitalism is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    thank you here is intersing movie about og luddites

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    So, considering I’m not using it for putting people out of jobs, and I’m not using it for justifying personal opinions, and I’m not misusing it in any way…. now what is your opinion? Are you just going to consistently find a way to complain about it because your mind is made up, or are you willing to have a rational conversation

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Where is this epidemic of kitchen knives being misused?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Since when is this an epidemic?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I don't know. You're the one who brought it up, I thought you'd be the one to know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I never used the word epidemic. I don’t believe the article use the word epidemic.

    If we want to talk about things that are more damaging to People, let’s talk about social media. That is exponentially more damaging than AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No, you have concerns about not banning kitchen knives, razor blades, and self-help books. I wanna hear the argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You are creating a conversation that does not exist. I don’t have concerns about not banning kitchen knives? I’m comparing tools to tools and you are turning a conversation to something you feel like screaming and yelling about because this is the dopamine time for you.

    I will not speak to someone who puts words in my mouth, and doesn’t use their ears.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If you don't want to restrict kitchen knives, why would you enter them into a discussion about "things ailing society" then? What point did you think you were making?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don’t want to restrict any of those things including AI, what are you talking about?

    Look, it is very clear that you aren’t interested in reading you were just interested in screaming so I’m not wasting my time on you. Thiswill be my last comment feel free to continue on your own

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 11 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    And yet people use it every day!
    Where are the laws? where is the protection from governments? And I'm not speaking about USA, laws don't exist there.
    The way I see it is people using it every day, despite the impacts of AI in humanity. Lets add the companies, a race to bring new features and make more money.

    I'm not gonna lie, I have used AI too in the past, and I saw its capabilities, which are amazing, but if not used right, then its useless for us.\

    As I commented in the other post, it's sad for us.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    without paywall: https://archive.is/f4wU4

    Edit: Can someone provide me with the link to the "new study"? (Second paragraph.) Somehow that's garbled in the archived version.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The AI therapist question is a very good one, is it better to have an AI therapist than none at all?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I was a physiotherapist and the AI recommendations for physical/mechanical health feel like someone grabbed a diagnosis from a lucky dip of options. It sounds very professional but doesn't specifically diagnose issues for the client.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    From what I gather about current chatbots, they always sound very eloquent. They're made that way with all the textbooks and Wikipedia articles that went in. But they're not necessarily made to do therapy. ChatGPT etc are more general purpose and meant for a wide variety of tasks. And the study talks about current LLMs. So it'd be like a layman with access to lots of medical books, and they pick something that sounds very professional. But they wouldn't do what an expert does, like follow an accepted and tedious procedure, do tests, examine, diagnosis and whatever. An AI chatbot (most of the times) gives answers anyways. So could be a dice roll and then the "solution". But it's not clear whether they have any understanding of anything. And what makes me a bit wary is that AI tends to be full of stereotypes and bias, it's often overly agreeable and it praises me a lot for my math genious when I discuss computer programming questions with it. Things like that would certainly feel nice if you're looking for help or have a mental issue or looking for reaffirmation. But I don't think those are good "personality traits" for a therapist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    is it better to have an AI therapist than none at all?

    The evidence so far shows that the answer to that is a responding "no". LLM bots have suggested means of suicide to people in crisis and encouraged unhealthy behavior in people with reading disorders. They are dangerous in such roles and should never be used in place of a therapist.

    No therapy is better than a "therapist" that tries to murder you.

  • source
  • parent