this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
351 points (95.1% liked)
Technology
85964 readers
3889 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wait, so its not the actual event and ensuing casualties that have AI researchers spooked, but the fact that it might cause the public to turn against AI?
Watch thiel, huang, karp etc videos. As far as they are concerned we are irrelevant at best, more accurately we are in the way, and we are a waste of resources that should belong to ai.
It's like responding to your employee losing an arm, ripped off by your tiger, and saying "I'm never going to financially recover from this."
(I wish I could add an /s.)
I miss sarcasm and satire
Let me put this in perspective:
In many countries its against the law to freely distribute plans for making neurotoxins or bombs, because the democratization of such knowledge would lower the threshold for people to commit acts of terror.
Likewise the plans for making a hydrogen bomb are a close kept government secret, because nuclear proliferation increases the likelihood of radiological accidents or even nuclear war.
How is it then that AI companies freely publish their AI models to any and all actors willing to pay them? Even though they know that this technology lowers the threshold for bad actors to commit cybercrime, engage in cyberwarfare, spread misinformation, commit fraud, manipulate markets and whatnot? The unregulated democratization of AI exposes societies to unprecedented risks.
Is it any wonder the public holds a negative view on AI?
I think they removed it, but I watched a documentary on Netflix explaining how to make a basic nuclear bomb.
Really the only hard part is obtaining the enriched uranium. Which is, thankfully, very hard.
Why are you comparing a tool used for knowledge and action augmentation to weapons created for destruction? Because your statement would look dumb if you said "electric motors and encyclopedias" instead of "neurotoxins and bombs".
I can use both electric motors and encyclopedias to inflict mass casualties against people who refuse to use them or the results of their labor, but that doesn't make them like bombs and neurotoxins. You're simply scared of a new technology because it's so different.
"Why are you comparing a tool used for knowledge and action augmentation"
Surely you are joking.
Are you using the LLM to write ?
Moving the goalposts implies ...
you just don't make any sense.
This is one of the problems of AI.
The appearance of making sense, without any
actual sense making.
I’m a data and AI specialist, so no…I’m not scared of technology :p
I’ll explain my argument: AI is technology that can be used for software automation. Neither software in general or AI are dangerous technologies in and of themselves. Just as nuclear energy or jet propulsion are not dangerous technologies in and of themselves.
But the application of technology is never ever neutral, so rules and regulations are always necessary to dictate the context and the conditions in which technology is being applied.
And therein lies the issue: Big Tech is allowing their models and platforms to be used to create applications that are inherently harmful. For example, how is it not a problem when people create deepfake porn of their underaged ex-girlfriend?
And mind you this is not an oversight: tech companies know well in advance what their models can be used for and the issues themselves can be fixed easily. They simply chose to accept the damage inflicted unto individuals and security and stability of society as a whole.
All so they can get ahead of the crowd and maximize their market share. If anything, this article is a testament to this clash of interests between society and big tech.
You can't possibly be what you claim to be. All the other problems with your argument aside, it is not trivial to make a model that is "safe" and functional at the same time. It has not been done.
It’s really not even so different. “AI” in the current LLM-era just tricks people into thinking it’s something fundamentally different because it can string together words in a more coherent sentence than we’re used to.
At its core, though, the whole premise of the comment you’ve replied to is the argument that knowledge is dangerous and I hope I don’t have to explain why that’s a bad argument.
Knowledge without wisdom and decent morals can be incredibly dangerous.
AI is a universe simulator that uses the fuzzy logic of language instead of hard math. It is a real-time interface between the human and thousand of years of collective knowledge and understanding. It is an epoch change, even if you remove the idea that it is a thinking being like you.
Ai is a banana toast simulator that uses farty logic of sandwich instead of hard knock life. It is a cereal box interface between the zombie and thousands of seconds of contrived marketing and manipulation. It is a diaper change, even if you remove the asparagus it is a toilet bowl full of arsenic.
How do you inflict a mass casualty with encyclopedias and electric motors?
How do you get to nukes and biological weapons that kill millions without them?
True, there are more valid reasons to hate AI, like that its usage inherently degrades the livability of our only planet or that it only functions due to artistic and intellectual property theft.
However, you're glossing over the reality that AI is already being used in weapons. It was also used by my government's regime to illegally kidnap the president of another country, even.
Electric motors and encyclopedias are irreplaceable in weapons. All electronics are used in weapons.
Farming, fishing, and electricity inherently degrade our planet far more than AI. They should all be used sustainably, wisely, and with an eye to ecosystem health and future generations. You'll get absolutely no argument from me there. Banning any of them or limiting their access to only the governments and corporations who are doing almost all the damage, is insanity.
When it comes to IP theft, that is a huge, non-ai problem. Again, corporations are responsible for almost all of the damage and we reap none of the benefits, even before AI was ever introduced. The problem is with how we allow corporations to copyright and restrict things for generations.
The solution is that AI, the technology that required all of humanity to contribute knowledge for it to exist, should be free for all to use. Why would IP theft be a reason to limit AI ownership to only corporations and governments? That's completely backwards.
@Nouvellalia @7101334
> Farming, fishing, and electricity inherently degrade our planet far more than AI.
Inherently? It's just a matter of time.
They're also necessary for existence (at least the first two, but when it comes to medical applications, really electricity too).
AI slop? Nope.
Nope, we all lived just fine without farming and fishing. Then we lived just fine without industrial farming and fishing. We lived most of human existence without either, and certainly without modern medicine.
You just like those things and you don't like AI.
Then you dress all AI applications down to "AI slop". Which if you want to move the goalposts to "AI slop", we can agree that it's about as necessary as high fructose corn syrup and streaming entertainment. Do you fuss on those as hard as frivolous AI usage?
@Nouvellalia @7101334 funny how really the only argument AI boosters can make with regards to its environmental impact is "what about all the other stuff that is worse". What about it? What about that? Look over there! Yes I've been concerned about all those things, for many years, because I've been concerned about climate change, for many years. You haven't?
re: your 1st point: deliberately disingenuous due to scale and time. re: your 2nd point: No
The money might go away!