top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 1 month ago
[–] 20 points 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    it's OK you don't have to like me

    follows you home

    /j

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    AI is an umbrella term that covers so many things. Like chess machines have been called Ai for decades before LLM. NPC behavior in videogames is called AI. Neural networks that try to fold and identify proteins to find cures for diseases are called AI. I know he means shit like Gen AI and LLM chat bots, but maybe he should be a bit more specific and stop letting these shitty companies appropiate the term AI when so many people in the AI field work on things that aren’t even related to LLMs and gen AI.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    So you're shocked by the term AI but not the term capitalism? Like what is a mean of production? Isn't a computer one? Isn't a phone? If I gain a bit more than what is "necessary for my survival" is that profit and rhus unethical?

    Not strongest examples but lots of these things are very subjective. Ideologies are generally much more subjective but for the reason it doesn't shock us.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Well, I see no problem with a gf hating the NPC behavior in videogames. Everyone does.

    And maybe it’s the people in the field who shoud be more specific and avoid using such a vague and misleading term to describe their work. 🤷

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

    What is misleading about the term artificial intelligence? It never meant intelligence indistinguishable from human intelligence, until the tech bros started marketing it as that.

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

    It makes a nonspecialist think about Asimov’s robots, Skynet or some such. Which not what the most people in the field works on, but it is and always was used in marketing, when they need to oversell something as “smart” or “intelligent” or superior to a human expert. It’s not the first time the related tech is being overhyped, is it? I still have a book somewhere about how to write an expert system in Basic, because, obviously, everyone needs an expert system everywhere, but not everyone can afford a Lisp Machine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I'd qualify but I'm sure I'd have the wrong bits for GF stuff.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Sadly this is asking too much nowadays

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Table stakes

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Hot take, but AI is really only bad because of capitalism.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, but their current form may never have existed if it wasn't for capitalism, and how CEOs "build".

    Car-dependent cities did pop-up behind the iron curtain, and that did not make car dependency any better. Sorry, some tech are just inherently poopoocaacaa.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    AI wouldnt exist in any similar form without capitalism, so youre technically roght. But devaluing (emotionally) artists works and making it harder to discover them because of easy mass proloferation of ai works (would happen regardless of capitalism imo) is a very heavy negative already, not to mention to the ecological toll it takes, which isnt solved by removing capitalism from the equation either as thats necessary for it to function in its current state

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    If generative AI wouldn't exist in a society without capitalism we would have failed. We need innovation and science, just without the profit motive. I agree that it probably wouldn't be as prevalent, but we don't stop cern because it requires a lot of energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • cern might be a bad example. cern was literally built because every nation on earth feared that it would be left behind on the development of even stronger nuclear physics shenanigans to make weapons out of it; and every country wanted to be "in" on the world-class research in this field. that's why every country benefits from participation in CERN. this research was not paid because of "good-will", but because of fear and military necessity.

  • source
  • parent