Not sure if this is the best community to post in; please let me know if there’s a more appropriate one. AFAIK Aii@programming.dev is meant for news and articles only.
Not sure if this is the best community to post in; please let me know if there’s a more appropriate one. AFAIK Aii@programming.dev is meant for news and articles only.
Most arguments people make against AI are in my opinion actually arguments against capitalism. Honestly, I agree with all of them, too. Ecological impact? A result of the extractive logic of capitalism. Stagnant wages, unemployment, and economic dismay for regular working people? Gains from AI being extracted by the wealthy elite. The fear shouldn’t be in the technology itself, but in the system that puts profit at all costs over people.
Data theft? Data should be a public good where authors are guaranteed a dignified life (decoupled from the sale of their labor).
Enshittification, AI overview being shoved down all our throats? Tactics used to maximize profits tricking us into believing AI products are useful.
AI is just a tool like anything else. What’s the saying again? "AI doesn’t kill people, capitalism kills people?
I do AI research for climate and other things and it’s absolutely widely used for so many amazing things that objectively improve the world. It’s the gross profit-above-all incentives that have ruined “AI” (in quotes because the general public sees AI as chatbots and funny pictures, when it’s so much more).
The quotes are because “AI” doesn’t exist. There are many programs and algorithms being used in a variety of way. But none of them are “intelligent”.
There is literally no intelligence in a climate model. It’s just data + statistics + compute. Please stop participating in the pseudo-scientific grift.
And this is where you show your ignorance. You’re using the colloquial definition for intelligence and applying incorrectly.
By definition, a worm has intelligence. The academic, or biological, definition of intelligence is the ability to make decisions based on a set of available information. It doesn’t mean that something is “smart”, which is how you’re using it.
“Artificial Intelligence” is a specific definition we typically apply to an algorithm that’s been modelled after the real world structure and behaviour of neurons and how they process signals. We take large amounts of data to train it and it “learns” and “remembers” those specific things. Then when we ask it to process new data it can make an “intelligent” decision on what comes next. That’s how you use the word correctly.
Your ignorance didn’t make you right.
Except the Neural Net model doesn’t actually reproduce everything real, living neurons do. A mathematician in the 70s said, “hey what if this is how brains work?” He didn’t actually study brains, he just put forward a model. It’s a useful model. But it’s also an extreme misrepresentation to say it approximates actual neurons.
If you really want to be pedantic, the modern concept of neural networks was invented decades prior.
But in either case, ANN do follow the basic concept of how neurons work. That’s not even up for debate. Obviously biological neurons have way more going on, and there’s even evidence for “warm” quantum processing happening within each neuron in the microtubules. But the feed-forward signal mechanism is real, and ANNs are based on that concept.
No idea what you’re saying here. But if I had to guess, you’re saying that “real brains, not artificial ones, create novel outputs”. And if that is what you meant, then congrats, you said nothing of value. The discussion was never about biological vs artificial neural network quality.
No.
Are you talking about AI or LLM branded as LLM?
Actual AI is accurate and efficient because it is designed for specific tasks. Unlike LLM which is just fancy autocomplete.
FTFY.