A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
-
@ScriptFanix @TimWardCam @resuna @thirstybear yeah I get that ai refers to generative ai nowadays, which is why I clarified to machine learning which does in my opinion have legitimate use cases
@yugthebug @ScriptFanix @TimWardCam @resuna @thirstybear Absolutely. 's right handy.
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear Surely there are two things going on here...
a) it's tone deaf and a big failure to read the room to come in with a 'but fire is used for x' argument.
b it still being true that @scalzi.com (love the work) is making a poor argument or deliberately conflating 'fire' with 'arson'.
I use LLMs daily for productive (daily janitorial) work no human should be burdened with. I try to be thoughtful about it and get the LLM itself to script alternatives to mindlessly burning processing cycles... etc.
There are arguments to say that despite this, it's wasteful and there are alternatives (none of which I can afford btw), but this is a complex argument.
There is solid discussion of LLMs vs ML vs just complex algorithms in this thread... We need to have these discussions lest the LLM bros win the day, and we have them all post hoc.
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear @TimChaffee This is perfect.
-
@ScriptFanix @resuna @yugthebug @jmax @thirstybear That not all "AI" is LLM and not all non-LLM "AI" is evil. Many people here get that, but there are plenty who don't.
@TimWardCam @ScriptFanix @resuna @yugthebug @jmax @thirstybear people know that. That’s why “AI” is in quotations.
-
@thirstybear One problem with this analogy is that the people talking about the arson ring often suggest banning fire rather than stopping arsonists from misusing it and the only way to get them to focus on the arsonists starts with reminding them that fire can be useful.
@MartyFouts @thirstybear they want to ban their houses being used for fueling the fire. The people roasting marshmallows and baking bread on their burning houses are not entitled to their houses as fuel and the arsonists have convinced them it’s necessary and okay.
So no, that’s not a problem. You just forgot that part of the metaphor.
-
@MartyFouts @thirstybear they want to ban their houses being used for fueling the fire. The people roasting marshmallows and baking bread on their burning houses are not entitled to their houses as fuel and the arsonists have convinced them it’s necessary and okay.
So no, that’s not a problem. You just forgot that part of the metaphor.
@707Kat @thirstybear Well you have certainly belabored the metaphor more than I thought possible but your example still has people going after the wrong people, your “marshmallow toasters” instead of the arsonists.
-
@707Kat @thirstybear Well you have certainly belabored the metaphor more than I thought possible but your example still has people going after the wrong people, your “marshmallow toasters” instead of the arsonists.
@MartyFouts @thirstybear I don't think people should go after the marshmallow toasters. The marshmallow toasters are the ones coming up to the homeowners and going "look how crispy the fire is making my marshmallow, isn't it nice? I hope the arsonists continue to burn houses so I can keep a roast going."
The bread bakers are talking about another kind of fire = AI.
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear
Since this post attracted a bunch of "not all AI" subthreads, here's a collection of useful articles about defining "AI" in our current day 🧵
https://tech.lgbt/@toolbear/116446645444544147 -
@thirstybear
Since this post attracted a bunch of "not all AI" subthreads, here's a collection of useful articles about defining "AI" in our current day 🧵
https://tech.lgbt/@toolbear/116446645444544147@toolbear It has. Which is ironic considering the original post
️ -
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/how-anthropic-used-its-ai-ethicslop
Anthropic ceo: “How can we ensure the gains of AI are shared globally? We do not have a mechanism for this. It is an unsolved problem.”
Brian Merchant: I actually laughed out loud reading this bit. What a mystery. It’s not like anyone has ever thought of progressive taxation before.
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/how-anthropic-used-its-ai-ethicslop
Anthropic ceo: “How can we ensure the gains of AI are shared globally? We do not have a mechanism for this. It is an unsolved problem.”
Brian Merchant: I actually laughed out loud reading this bit. What a mystery. It’s not like anyone has ever thought of progressive taxation before.
-
@TimWardCam Lots of comments arguing that this is not what people are complaining about, so I felt I should point out whatever system my cash back for groceries card is using for fraud detection is an absolute sack of shit, excelling at both Type 1 *and* Type 2 errors.
@siderea @resuna @yugthebug @jmax @thirstybear Yes, there are several suppliers of such systems in a highly competitive market and some are better than others.
The systems are largely sold on false positive rate - false positives are expensive, because they piss off your customers and you need to pay humans to man a call centre to deal with the complaints.
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear If their agenda wasto ban firewe would be!
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear IMHO a typical problem when words are not properly defined.
One persons speaks of a technology when saying "AI".
Another person speaks of a socioeconomic model when saying "AI".
As long as both persons use the same word for completely different things, they are unable to discuss properly.
My suggestion: Refer to the technology as "AI" and to the socioeconomic model as "Capitalism"
.P.S. I also really hate that everyone equates AI with LLMs.
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
RE: https://agilodon.social/@thirstybear/116708400062712941
and yet people prefer to rant for hours against fire, instead of trying to understand the social mechanisms behind the arson attacks.
mechanisms that, incidentally, have been plaguing society long before the current AI wave.
but you'd perhaps have to the criticize the mechanisms behind government and why it produces monopolies (like copyright), and incentivizes centralisation of control and overcapitalized industry. how about instead you'd just be really mad at 8 CEOs and vague concepts?
-
@TimWardCam @ScriptFanix @jmax @yugthebug @thirstybear
Organic, chemical free. I guess it's some kind of crystallized energy.
@resuna @TimWardCam @ScriptFanix @jmax @yugthebug @thirstybear if you wanted chemical free, you would need to go to the edge of the universe (travel faster than the speed of light) and jump outside faster than the expansion of the universe!
-
@LevZadov @yugthebug @thirstybear I'm sorry, but you've lost that fight. In general usage, LLM is exactly what AI means.
To paraphrase Dickens, then general usage is an ass. The general public believe a *lot* of things that aren’t true. Misidentification of key words binds us, as Brian Eno would put it, with chains of iron. Most of us, for example, believe we are “free”, and that our “liberty” is a “God” given “right.” And so forth. If we don’t know what the words mean, the concepts are beyond our understanding. Of course the map is not the territory, but without the map, we are lost.
If there is anything in the world today that humanity needs to know what it is, it’s AI. Let’s inform them by employing the correct names for the things that enslave us, all of them, not just “AI” an “LLM”. They “freedom” will mean something real. As things stand today, to paraphrase Kris Kistofferson, “freedom’s just another word."
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
-
A note from one of my favourite authors at the moment.
@thirstybear Yeah, because #antiAI people don't usually talk about the arson, they make blanket and wildly incorrect claims about the technology itself.
There _is_ an organized arson ring, but everyone is like "We need to ban fire. Fire burns down X homes per year. Breathing in smoke is toxic and causes cancer. Fire burns flesh, etc..."
There is no such thing as there being a moral valence with #technology. Actors make evil and non-evil decisions.
A ton of the anti #AI rhetoric is actually talking points from the #billionaires committing the arson. They are the source of the, incorrect, claim that it's causing job losses.
The push to completely eschew the #tech is an abdication of responsibility that ensured the most evil people are the ones controlling it.
-
@thirstybear That is a pretty apt comparison. "AI" is a broad term, so it feels like 90% of the time saying "AI" has it's uses is being disingenuous.
Machine Learning which no one AFAIK complained about DOES have it's uses for some things. GenAI is what people are complaining about. That's why it's always best not to use "AI" unless you are trying to talk in general about all types of AI.
@VANTABlack2000 @thirstybear #GenAI has a ton of good uses as well.
