Yeah, you either didn't read what I wrote or your brain has rot beyond any meaningful discussion, good luck out there.

I am engaging with this, because I want to believe Lemmy can be better than Reddit.

That being said, while I agree that LLMs and diffusion models should never touch anything close to art, anything that is life or death and anything legal or financial, it's important to remember, AI is an entire subfield of research in Computer Science, its many decades old and encompasses so many technologies that I could not even name them all.

LLMs and diffusion models are two of its many impressive achievements, we literally solved the natural language processing problem. It took us like 70 years, and because some silicon valley ghouls' rhetoric, we get (supposedly) well meaning people talking like Luddites.

Fundamentally correct, there is a machine now that can replace some workers, but technology isn't the problem, the capitalists are. This technology can make so many people's lives easier, so many things better and it doesn't need to be expensive or cause harm to the planet, because all of that is a fundamental problem with capitalism, this is not leaded gasoline.

Yes! Another problem is, not everyone is using AI in the sense that people think of.

AI is a large field, it studies many different methodologies and aspects of automation, prediction, generation and observation, yet today most people outside the field use it for LLMs and image generation, which throws the baby out with the bath water.

In addition to that, there are publicly available LLMs, some have datasets obtained entirely from consenting parties and public domain works. You don't have to pay billionaire technocratic fascist a single dime to use such marvelous tools computer scientists worked decades to bring forth.

A machine can never create art, it can never take responsibility and should never be allowed to make decisions, it's a tool.

It pains me, when I was entering my teenage years, I had two paths, physics or computer science, for a while I focused on both and in the end, economic pressure along with AI research pushed me into CS.

Now I get to watch decades of research, millions of man hours get trashed on the internet because a few rich ghouls from silicone valley gave it the last push and claimed it as their own.

The Swiss have relentlessly been working on ethically trained models with data willfully contributed and borrowed from the public donain, but we never get to talk about it, or the fact that China's frontier level models are democratizing what the Americans stole, they didn't do it out of kindness, but it regardless, gave us back part of what was stolen.

I appreciate you chiming in, it's nice to see level headed folk.

You're the exact type of intellectual black hole that poisons any amount of productive discussion on the topic, moral absolutism runs rampant everywhere, but especially on this platform, people love pretending they are better than reddit, Twitter, or w/e. but it's equally impossible to have any nuance.

Shameful display. Pathetic.

The comment above yours and people who use the same arguments are clearly uneducated on the matter.

Not everyone is spending untold thousands on Claude or GPT models. People still own hardware, that they can use to run frontier models. Most open source contributors don't have the kind of money these out of touch people think we do. I can't even justify a subscription to either of those companies and I know I'd make good use of it.

We donate our time to these projects, and with that, our knowledge and skill. The problem is, time is finite amd these moral crusaders don't even drop a cent to these projects, much less a weekend. The use of LLMs is purely to save time. Some things would never get done without the time compression on offer, but because they need life to be black and white, none of the good that could ever come can be justified.

Lmao, found the Zionist

Hate how you're so upvoted because not only is your information third or fourth hand depending on perspective, you also outright believe it and knit your idea of consent around such weak thread.

She's joking, if anything this is a defeatist joke around the fact that she is nearly powerless when it cones to being objectified and sexualized without her consent, and the dark humor on display is very on brand. So the screenshotted comment, presumably a viewer of hers, should be familiar with her style of comedy and her struggles with being objectified and her likeness being misused.

So that comment is by someone who either does the exact thing to her that she doesn't want, or they are genuinely so porn pilled that they genuinely haven't ever picked up on what she's talking about and are only there to objectify and sexualize her.

I would not have bothered to comment unless I knew enough about her, her content and the thoughts she shared surrounding these things, I suggest we all adopt this approach in the future.

I rarely ever feel the need to comment, but going down the rabbit hole of reading your comments, posts, and history of the /c/ you moderate, I must say, you are either one of the most dedicated trolls on the internet or one of the most mentally ill person on the internet.

The level of vitriol you spew in your absolutely deranged, completely misinformed, straight up false posts is astonishing, like if I didn't think you were mentally ill, I could have suggested that you should teach a rage baiting class, but for now, I suggest you seek help for your mental health. From a licensed professional, not the Windows trouble shooting tool.

I feel like you didn't even read the blog post or have any clue what this is about.

I mostly lurk, but for once I will come out of the woodwork to say, this feels absurd and heavy handed.

If a person argues with pseudoscientific reasons and has nothing substantial to back their claims, then fine, we as humans should try to correct them, present counter points, facts, research papers, citations, etc.

You have to give a best effort attempt to change hearts and minds, if the person cannot see reason then they should be ignored, downvoted, disproven. If they threaten to harm anyone, or work actively to undermine rules protecting others, spam, etc., then moderation should be considered.

Banning, forbidding, or otherwise shutting down discourse you don't like, regardless if you're right or wrong is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it. Period.