The word that has been sticking with me about AI is “disrespect.” Disrespect to the training material stolen. Disrespect to the people who wrote it. Disrespect to the communities shouldering the data center load. Disrespect to the people these companies are tracking through their services. Disrespect to authors of websites scraped for data. Disrespect to human intelligence and creativity. Etc.
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2026
152 points (98.1% liked)
Fuck AI
7239 readers
1128 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We don't hate it enough, we can still do better!
Why is this community suddenly overflowing with AI fanboys? I'm sick of it.
Consider how much money is behind AI right now and it's a lot easier to understand.
Is the implication here that the AI industry are astroturfing Lemmy/Piefed?
1, I don't really believe lemmy is as inconsiderable as people like to think, but whatever.
2, the money put into AI manifests in a ton of different ways. You've got people who like it because they want their stocks to go up, people who like it because their office pampers them for being a good sport about using it, people who like it because of the cultural osmosis of seeing it at the super bowl, as an ad between every 3rd and 4th reddit post, probably on the sidebar or whatever on polymarket, and you have people who like the fetishistic technofuturism of it all, a public image which is another product of ad agencies more or less.
So, even if no one is astro turfing lemmy in specific, our culture is still being astroturfed out the ass.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Everyone I see online hates Ai and everyone I know irl (but my gf) loves it.
Because AI completely destroys online communities but has a much lesser impact on local/IRL communities I suppose. So those depending on online communities a lot are likely geared to be much more adverse to AI.
A lot of people don’t dare to speak up against AI in person, but they still don’t like it. At my company if you were to criticize AI, you would tank your career
I see lots of enthusiastic love too
I don't hate AI. It's a tool, I'm indifferent to it. I hate the people trying to force it on everyone and into everything, and their eagerness to fuck up huge numbers of lives to make a quick buck.
Without a doubt! LLMs are a fantastic tool. But they're just a tool! They makes some tasks easier.
They're not the mark of the beast.
They're not Skynet.
They're not even "artificial intelligence". That's all marketing.
Once this bubble bursts, humanity will be left with some great tools to move forward with.
I would agree with you if it wasn't so destructive to the environment
A tool has a deterministic outcome, you hammer a nail you know the outcome, you saw a board you know the outcome. No matter how many times you do the same process you know the outcome. Even dice have a boundary of outcomes you can understand.
You give an AI the same string of prompts multiple times and you will get a different outcome each time. Whether its updates to the model or the fact AI's own response contributes to its context which small changes will build up over time, there is no way of knowing what the outcome will be, how accurate it is, or how to recreate the same results (especially with multiple prompts involved).
I wouldn't call it a tool for that reason but maybe I am nitpicking here.
I'd say if a tool produces predictable results, even if not fully deterministic, it qualifies as a tool. It might not be right for jobs were precision is needed, but the current LLMs and GenAI are perfectly suitable for their primary purpose:
Conning idiots into trading their skills and natural intelligence for a promise of convenience, scamming managers into fucking over employees for a promise of saving money, then pulling the rug, cashing in on the desperation of those who can no longer function without it, ruining a generation of students that don't yet have the expertise to realise the full extent of the damage they're doing to their own skills (including, as some other post brought up, the skill to not kill people with your MedGPT malpractice), causing unpredictable damage to a host of economies and industries, fucking over residents that don't get a (democratic) say in whether they want to have a data center chugging their water supply, fucking up the climate, fucking the whole world...
In short: LLMs and GenAI are a tool to sell our future for a quick buck we'll never see.
I think it could be a tool. Maybe. So long as what you wanted was correct-sounding nonsense, it's perfect for that.
Of course, when they say "AI is a tool," what they mean is "AI is not political," which is obviously ridiculous. Tools have never not been political, and like Icarus, their wings will burn up eventually.
Language modeling is equivalent to a dice roll (given a perfect random number generator). Setting the temperature to 0 removes all randomness from the output, meaning the model always selects the highest probability next word, and the model becomes 100% deterministic. That is, the output of a model is entirely predictable given temperature = 0, you know the model weights, and the seed/prompt.
These technicalities aside, it’s true for both a dice roll event and a specific model/prompt event that, practically speaking, the outputs are treated as probabilistic despite being mathematically/technically deterministic: a human can’t predict with 100% accuracy the output of a die despite the theory (classical mechanics of die positioning, force, velocity, friction, …) proving determinism
You know the boundaries of a dice roll based one the number of sides of the dice. You will never know the boundaries of the AI.
With a D20 I know I have a 5% chance of at a roll of 20 and 50% chance to roll over 10. With AI you don't even know if the data it was trained on was even accurate or if it will hallucinate and speak nonsense.
You can literally ask an AI how many letter Ts are in the word colonialism and it will tell you two. Now how on earth could anyone have known its probability to say that clearly wrong answer?
Also each AI session its response to your prompts contribute to the context of the session and small alterations in how the AI speaks build up and change the outcome of a session, thus the AIs own responses effect its probabilities, another thing you cannot account for.
Yes, you do know the boundaries of AI. It is purely matrix multiplication: its output distribution is just as intelligible as the distribution of rolls of a dice. We receive a probability distribution for the next token given a sequence of tokens. This is demonstrable; search for softmax online.
To fairly equate a dice roll event to a model prompt event we must understand the technicalities. To say you have a 20 sided die, is equivalent to saying you have a specific model’s architecture and value of every parameter, in the context of qualifying event determinism.
If you can assume your die is fair, and 20 sided, that is an equivalent assumption about a model as to saying it’s llama-3.1-8B-instruct. That is, you do know the specific model weights, corresponding to a functional relationship between input and output which is deterministic. That is, if you know the model weights, which is equivalent to knowing whether a die is fair and n-sided, you can deterministically predict the output of a model as you can deterministically predict which number on a die will land
You’re making specific, technical errors about the mathematical basis of language modeling, and equating things fallaciously to a similar deterministic event.
Despite this, your intuition is right: we can’t perceptually predict the output of a model as we can’t perceptually predict what number will result from a die roll
Yeah, sort of.
I mean it is a tool made from stealing other people's work.
And also we have restrictions on other tools in society. Knifes for instance. They're pretty neat, but you wouldn't want to be giving them to kids or pretending that it solves every problem.
Sort of like cigarettes in the 1950s.
Or asbestos.
How it currently exists, yes in most cases it is trained on stolen cognitive labor. Do you think this is inherent to the technology itself, however? Consider a model trained on entirely public domain data, or non-copyleft liscence not requiring attribution. E.g., talkie
Totally agree that we need strict regulation.
If only we lived in a society where people could be freely able to produce cognitive labor while also being guaranteed a dignified life with universal basic services and income, regardless of what they produce. Then, like with piracy, LLM training, in my opinion, could be trained on anything without harming original authors.
I would hate a hammer if everyone I cannot send dickwise demanded I perform brain surgery with it.
And that’s exactly where AI fits currently.
Imagine the head of a factory declaring, "Why am I paying all these people to assemble products when I could give 20% of them hammers and fire the rest."
I dunno about this analogy, I think if a hammer just got invented then for some trades 20% of the workforce with hammers will dramatically outperform the full workforce without.
AI is just not a hammer-calibre tool to begin with, but honesty I'd rather argue about where we go even if we imagine AI really is that useful. People being laid off en masse should be much more concerning than which technology their employers dramatically overestimed to get to that point. I think I'd be just as upset about mass layoffs in a fictional world where they were a sound business decision. I actually don't care that those decisions will tank some business after the next quarter.
It was mostly a joke because AI is getting shoehorned into everything in ways that makes as much sense as a hammer at every station of an assembly line; at the very least, AI is not actually replacing the laid off workers who were fired for lack of projects and work.
What I also think is pretty great about the AI-backlash is that it's effecting the educated "middle class", which has built society around gate keeping degrees. Nobody generally gave a shit when modernization displaced factory workers ("just the price of progress!"), because working with the BRAIN is obviously morally superior (/s), but now knowledge work is effected, they're feeling a drop of class consciousness.
Generative "AI" sucks.
this... tool is (kinda) ok, sucks and it's wrong a lot but that's besides the point.
the tool should be accessable, but NOT forced..
"Da Pope!"
Why is he so sad that people dislike his sponsors?
Well, if the concept of the belly brain is true, this is the only AI I'll accept or trust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca_(art_installation)
stupid statement about hammers and carpenters
Adam might be right, but i guarantee you ig used correctly, and not by billionaire bros, itd just be another tool. responsible uses, not therapy, and life partners.
LLMs are phenomenal TOOLS. humans are the problem.
acknowledge llm training is theft and compensate. that means billionaires may not make 37 trillion in 7 years
its just fucking ridiculous, boycott any ai that isnt a public benefit corporation or something. maybe Bernie has it right, but it doesn't compensate non us training data
hate the fuck up people ⬆️
Everyone doesn't hate AI, the pilot whales think we have it coming.
view more: next ›