500
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
500 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
87006 readers
2147 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
It's unclear from the article what exactly he did wrong. There's nothing wrong with using AI as long as you triple check the info it gives you.
The main problem we're facing today with this tech is people thinking it's magically perfect and can operate without human supervision. Was that what he was doing?
The main problem with the output of LLMs is people not checking results, but there are ethical problems with the effective use of it too. Especially if you're you're dealing with the major platforms, who have shown no qualms allying themselves with fascist governments, surveillance capitalists, or just generally being cavalier about workers rights. (And obviously extracting value from the commons and renting it out on a scale never before seen, but that's the obvious one.)
I would say the same thing about hosting services on AWS. The corporate world does it because it just makes financial sense, but all they care about is outputs. I expect better from individuals who are trying to send a message.
AI is literally destroying the environment. How the FUCK do so many people not realise this. The data centres use massive amounts of water, their owners refuse to use renewables, they take up space on the power grid so it becomes impossible to build new housing, etc ad nauseum.
My God.
Yeah and so is animal agriculture…
Except you need food to eat, you don't need AI.
You don't need animal products to live, but I don't disagree with your point about food. At least it's actually for people.
AI is only for extracting the last bit of marrow from the bones of workers before making them completely obsolete.
Except you don't need to eat meat, you're just justifying the destruction you like. That's not to say that AI is anything close to as relevant as food, but the point still stands, meat production is destructive to the environment.
Something can be both useful and also destructive. Pretty sure people have done the maths and to approach the levels of efficiency that say meat has you'd be consuming a lot more calories. Similarly actual milk is better than soy milk.
This isn't to diss people that make the choice, but your quality of life will be worse, so yes I count that as those meat products being necessary, in spite of the environmental damage. I think there are better ways to fix that. Diversifying the meat industry, lowering food waste, etc. What seems more interesting at the moment is lab grown meat, since it has all the pros with none of the cons, except cost.
You should check your facts about meat efficiency, soy milk and dairy... And don't just ask ai to tell you what you want to hear...
I'm disgusted that you'd assume I use AI.
What does meat's "efficiency" have to do with anything related to caloric intake? If I consume 1000 calories of meat or 1000 calories of vegetables, I've still consumed 1000 calories. I can only assume you mean I would have to eat a larger quantity of vegetables get the same amount of calories, and that's not the argument you think it is when people by and large consume too many calories and don't get enough micronutrients as it is.
I'm not even a full vegetarian, but even I know this is just self justification for what you want to do. One of my partners is a vegetarian, and I cut back on like 80-90% of my meat intake and my quality of life (like energy and general physical/mental wellbeing) is the same or better than it was a few years ago.
The only good points you made was about food waste and lab meat, the rest is just cope.
Sorry my thoughts got lost over multiple messages. I meant to get a similar amount of protein you need to consume more vegan food, especially calorie rich ones, most restaurants that I've seen when they have comparable items the vegan one had way more calories. I'd love to hear more of your experiences with this as someone who's gone through that, do you find it harder to stay in shape?
Also thank you for actually engaging with me on this, the other person was very volatile.
Sure, but optimizing for protein isn't the best methodology. I guess if you're determined to max protein, meat is a better source. But if you want a better and more rounded diet, especially one low in saturated fats and high in fiber, the vegetarian (or even reduced meat) pathway is much better. Doubly so if you're concerned about heart disease, colon cancer, or any of the side effects of eating too much protein.
Makes sense, thank you. I personally try to avoid red meats because of the concerns you raised. I'm not saying a meat only diet is the way, ofc you need a well rounded diet and greens certainly have their place in our diets, but we are omnivores for a reason
I have this feeling the vast majority of lemmy sells their labor to the most evil fucking corporations on the planet.
Why do you think we're all so interested in unions?
We live in an economy engineered to isolate us and make us work building up these empires for crumbs to be able to survive while slowly selling our souls sway. It's depressing.
My hoa forces us to water our lawns in a drought when it’s illegal to.
Celebs have planes and yachts they use on a whim.
The entire internet now uses some form of ai.
So you first. Get offline and go live in the fucking woods.
The HOA can't force you to break the law. If this is actually happening to you, talk to a lawyer!
Your comment is wrong
Like I said, if they can fix that problem, then I'm fine with it. The resources it currently consumes is the reason why I kind of detest 4K and 8K AI videos. But I also kind of detest 4K and 8K TVs and monitors. We don't need that many god damn pixels. Unless you're a bird of prey, 4K is a complete waste of electricity.
Well, that is debatable. For some its using Ai is a problem by definition, its not even about the result. A few issues: a) Ai is unethically trained on data without respecting the original license, b) using Ai (probably even paying for it) supports Ai companies, which in turn are causing the massive issues in the tech price increases.
This is like saying that smoking weed is unethical because of the murderous actions of the cartels who grow and distribute it. You're problem with AI isn't with the technology itself nor its use.
I'm not sure about the weed argument, can't say anything about it. But first, my personal problem with Ai doesn't matter to this disussion, as I was talking about what people could have an issue with, not about my personal problems. Secondly farming data without respecting the original license, not even linking to the source where it got from is in fact a problem with "its use". That is an unsolved problem lot of people just ignore, which does not make it less of a problem (it makes it a bigger problem). And that is just a few issues I listed, not even talking about the problems of generated content. There are legitimate concerns using Ai, no matter how you frame it, some just choose to ignore it.
Okay. Then the problem that people, not you particularly, have with AI isn’t with the technology itself nor its use, but the methods by which the companies "grow and harvest it", so to speak.
Which I don't even think is true. People have just lost their minds over this. If a company unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data, we don't say that there are legitimate concerns using books.
We would be having a problem with it if every book was regurgitated stolen data. That's kind of the core of how all of these generative AI models work to the point that their creators have argued in court that they wouldn't exist at all if they weren't allowed to steal all the training data.
It can be trained on the exact same free data that we can be trained on. Just like us, it doesn't have to bypass paywalls. I think they're arguing that if I can look at the Wikipedia and tell you that an avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers, then AI should be allowed to as well.
This is misleading and dishonest. Its not just looking up a single free information. Ai does more than that. Ai will not only scrape and copy the entire article, it will also scrape and copy the entirety of Wikipedia. There are licenses attacked to the Wikipedia article we have to follow to, if we scrape and use it for other purposes. It will also scrape the entire web. That is not the same as just looking up an Avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers.
This is weirdly accusatory. I'm not sitting here in a black cape and stovepipe top hat, twirling my mustache.
If this is the way we're going to look at it then I guess we have to throw this technology out the window. It seems like a bad idea to do that though.
BTW so you agree with me then, because the only solution you see here to throw it away. Because what I described is not hallucinated by me, this is how its operate. It was to correct you for your wrong example with looking up a single information from Wikipedia.
Why? Besides that's not possible in the near future, it could be made illegal and then suddenly the biggest companies (the driver behind it) would have to stop. This wouldn't eliminate all Ai tools everywhere, so getting rid of it is probably not possible anymore.
But that wasn't my suggestion either. And we don't have to throw it away, we have to comply. It needs to change.
And this was my point from the very beginning. Using AI isn't bad. The problems that people have with it has nothing to do with the technology itself.
We literally discussed about the problems of Ai the whole time... LLMs have conceptional problems, regardless who uses it. It is the technology that is the problem first, second problem are the companies abusing it even more and then the careless or greedy users too. Its threefold. Saying it has nothing to do with the technology itself is therefore wrong.
I disagree with this.
I agree with this.
The problem with everyone's panic over AI is that they can't think straight. It's like if I say that hammers are fantastic but everyone says that they are horrible because they have conceptual problems, murderous users are hitting people in the head with them, the companies are stealing wood and cutting down the rain forest to make them, etc.; meanwhile a YouTuber is caught using one and he's apologizing and saying he has a problem and his wife and family are chewing him out for using a hammer. It's sheer madness.
There's nothing wrong with using a hammer. If the companies are using enslaved ewoks provided by Lord Vader to make them, that has nothing to do with the technology itself.
Again wrong analogy just to disagree. That is not the conceptional problem with LLMs I talked about. It is a matter of fact that the LLMs are trained on data without respecting their license such as GPL, even worse when generating content. These are factual problems with the concept of LLMs. This is not like a hammer that was designed for a specific purpose, that is then misused as something else. That is not the issue whatsoever here. The design and philosophy of LLMs is deeply flawed in many ways.
The hammer analogy shows either you try to change the topic, or you don't understand the issues I'm talking about. That is completely false analogy to the issues I brought up. Same with a knife or even a game controller. Just because you can misuse it, does not mean its wrongly designed. The user didn't use it properly. That is NOT what I was talking about.
You're going in circles, talking out of both sides of your mouth.
You just come up with analogies that does not address the issues I am talking about. We are talking about the source code the LLMs copy and analyze and then not respect the license. They fail to provide the source code and source material they analyzed, so we could build the Ai models from scratch. And I am not talking about the data after training.
Your hammer analogy (and others) are absolutely not addressing any of these issues. Instead you talk about the end user that can misuse the tool, which is NOT what I am talking about. And now you start attacking personally because you ran out of arguments. Just wasting peoples time.
You've been personally attacking me for a while now. You accused me of being misleading, dishonest and trying to change the subject. According to you, I'm worse than Snidely Whiplash.
There is a difference. I explain why you are dishonest and misleading. I don't just accuse. So its based off technical reasoning and not just personally attacking without reason. You just have no arguments left and just attack personally instead basing off on reasoning. That is a huge difference.
Unless you have good arguments, LLMs have architectural flaws in their design and need to change. And that is a factual correct statement, which I explained earlier. That has nothing to do with an opinion.
Oh. You logically explained your fallacious ad hominems. Okay.
No, read again what I explained before. I explained the technical problems of the architectural flaws. There are deep problems with LLMs and I explained why some people have a problem with it. You might not care, but that doesn't solve the problems.
I think you need to read up on the difference between "free as in beer" and "free" licenses. Everything on Wikipedia is copyrighted under a GNU license, which requires any use to give credit AND ALSO be licensed under the GPL. Which AI models do not (and cannot) do.
Also, just conceptually... We built a giant, free library (and museum and art gallery and etc.) on the internet, and these parasitic AI companies came in and built a fence around it and started charging admission while massively polluting our cities and towns and gobbling up resources at an incredible rate. Then, even if you pay them their admission fees, the information you get is at best 70% correct. Why would anyone celebrate that?
Off course we say its a legitimate concern if someone unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data... The point of scraping and stealing data without respecting its license, training their software with it and using it commercially (or even non commercially) without giving even credit and not respecting its original license?
No, its not just the methods. I am talking about deep problems with the technology, the methods how companies go with it, and then its usage from company and end user. Ai trained with those data and used makes it impossible to respect the original license, for the user. So in this case, the company using the Ai AND the user of the model violate licenses. Maybe. Maybe not, if the data allows it. But we don't know and CANNOT check and know for sure, that's the problem. Just because you don't understand the issue or don't care does not make it less of a problem.
As an example with software licenses like GPL requires that any derivative works using this source code (such as Linux or whatever my personal program is licensed under GPL) has to be GPL licenses (Open Source) too. That is not debatable. That is how this license work. Now the Ai can be trained on this data, using the source code, and then? See where this goes? That is only one generalized example.
We have a legitimate concern with that particular book, not all books.
The difference is, you know which book you have a concern with. Ai does not operate like that. With using Ai, you don't know which book the data is from and it is not possible for the Ai to tell you that. There are conceptional problems with Ai. Your book example does not work here, because that works differently than Ai.
I mostly agree, but even if LLMs were 100% correct all the time (they're not), there are still some pretty serious ethical issues surrounding it. It is up to each person to decide if they find that acceptable or not.
I disagree with the moral panic about AI stealing things. They're not Xerox machines. It does exactly what humans do except faster. Before AI, this YouTuber was reading a bunch of stuff, "stealing" things from it, and putting it back together in a different way, just like AI, except he actually understands what he's reading.
I am concerned though about the resources it uses. But I don't see that as an ethical issue. That's more of a logistical issue. If they can make AI that doesn't drink up Lake Michigan and doesn't make the electrical grid scream, then more power to it.
My biggest concern whether people are for it or against it is that they don't think it's Skynet, or Data from Star Trek. It's just a big dumb machine, a gigantic MENACE matchbox computer.
My complaint is at least before the individual stealing the idea and recombining it was the one getting paid.
Now that's just a SaaS that benefits a handful of overvalued superscalers. They get to sit on their horde of data and charge for access.
This makes it sound like it can do anything humans can do, but you're actually wrong in a lot of different ways. Generative AI is a reconstruction machine. It takes the things it "knows" (because they don't know anything, they're just lots and lots of coefficients in giant matrices), and attempt to reconstruct from an incomplete data point.
They are actually a lot closer to Xerox machines than they are to humans. If you train gen AI on one thing, it will only know that one thing, and it will only recreate that one thing. It could never do more than that. Humans just do not fundamentally work that way. Like, if you want to say most stories are recombinations of other stories, fine, but that is wrong. There is an origin that was created by a human. Not everything is stolen.
There are many, many issues with gen AI, from the resources it uses, to its use in surveillance, to the fact that it is still wrong on fundamental ideas. It's just kinda shit technology and the people that think it is awesome are usually the dumbest fucking morons I have ever met, and that is terrifying. Man, just learning the math and science behind it and how it works should be the bar, but none of them know how it fucking works or why it cannot improve without using more and more resources.
According to the article, he used terminology associated with LLMs when answering a question.
He denies that he was reading an AI generated answer and instead says that he just uses LLMs too much and it bled over into his speech.
Uhhh