Ask Lemmy

AI (LLMs) is/are a fantastic tool.

But that's what it is, a tool that can make some tasks easier.

It's not world-changing like some tech bros and CEOs think it is because they don't actually understand the technology.

It's also not the apocalypse or The Matrix or Skynet coming to end civilization. It's just a tool.

After the AI bubble bursts, AI will still be there, as a tool for humans to use.

I think it's possible that some of the people you see on Lemmy may have started using AI a little more in their lives and see it for what it is.

OP is baffled by the pro-AI people.

I'm baffled by the anti-AI people.

Fundamentally it seems bizarre to judge the quality of, for example, an image or a piece of music, by the process that created it: the proof is in the pudding.

I'm amazed at what AI is generating...it seems kind of fake to pretend a beautiful image isn't beautiful when you discover it's made by AI.

The arguments against AI are annoyingly reductionist or biased: e.g. focusing on occasional "hallucinations" as if the majority of AI productions aren't, basically, impressive (or, at least, what was asked for by the user).

FYI: Anti-AI people are a very small minority of the world.

When more "normies" join in, you'll see a natural shift into being more "pro AI"

Anecdote: A fucking therapist told me to "just use AI to help you write a resume"... 🧐 (don't remember how I even got to the topic of resumes)

Yeah... turns out not a good fit, for other reasons... (constantly just be like "go outside" and making me feel so unconfortable and I kinda had an existential crisis on whether or not I belonged in this country)

So there is a few groups there is the ignorant group, which you are part of evident by your terminology use. When ignorant people do things they tend to be wrong whether that is trusting AI or not trusting AI.

I am in general pro-AI and far from being a teenager. The important difference is that i can acknowledge that not everything is fine.

For example, i do see no harm in self-hosting your LLM, or in things like Horde AI, where people share their resources for Imagegen. I also think that machine learning in itself is simply a technique like any other CS method.

I DO see harm in the way that Corpos try to push LLMs in every nook they can find (nothing wrong with experimenting inhouse, but lots of wrong when rolling out "features" noone wants or needs, and which can never be cost effective). It's also very much not fine how this technology has been marketed (especially by Sam Altman) as more than a small stepping stone towards AGI - the expectation (and the correlating real-life consequences) that LLMs in their current state can actually replace human workers cannot hold up when taking a critical look at it. The current push away from open source models is also a bad thing.

All of this leads to very unhealthy things, like unsustainable growth/building of datacenters that will probably not be needed in this form, elimination of entry-level (or worse, even senior) jobs which will bite the industry in the ass sooner or later, and people who seemingly aren't capable of seeing that production of language isn't the same as intelligence or conscience.

I have said before that i would suggest an UNESCO-founded open model with the option to opt out for whoever doesn't want their data in this "world heritage model". It's the worlds combined output that is used, so it should be free to use for private usage, and with licencing terms for organizations funding an stipend / UBI for the arts.

Edit: I don't really care about the downvotes, but i would prefer articulated responses over kneejerk reactions.