First of all, intellectual property rights do not protect the author. I'm the author of a few papers and a book and I do not have intellectual property rights on any of these - like most of the authors I had to give them to the publishing house.

Secondly, your personal carbon footprint is bullshit.

Thirdly, everyone in the picture is an asshole.

I work at a company that uses AI to detect repirstory ilnesses in xrays and MRI scans weeks or mobths before a human doctor could.

This work has already saved thousands of peoples lives.

But good to know you anti-AI people have your 1 dimensional, 0 nuance take on the subject and are now doing moral purity tests on it and dick measuring to see who has the loudest, most extreme hatred for AI.

I believe AI is going to be a net negative to society for the forseeable future. AI art is a blight on artistry as a concept, and LLMs are shunting us further into search-engine-overfit post-truth world.

But also:

Reading the OOP has made me a little angry. You can see the echo chamber forming right before your eyes. Either you see things the way OOP does with no nuance, or you stop following them and are left following AI hype-bros who'll accept you instead. It's disgustingly twitter-brained. It's a bullshit purity test that only serves your comfort over actually trying to convince anyone of anything.

Consider someone who has had some small but valued usage of AI (as a reverse dictionary, for example), but generally considers things like energy usage and intellectual property rights to be serious issues we have to face for AI to truly be a net good. What does that person hear when they read this post? "That time you used ChatGPT to recall the word 'verisimilar' makes you an evil person." is what they hear. And at that moment you've cut that person off from ever actually considering your opinion ever again. Even if you're right that's not healthy.

So I'll be honest. I use GPT to write Python scripts for my research. I'm not a coder and I don't want to be one, but I do need to model data sometimes and I find it incredibly useful that I can tell it something in English and it can write modeling scripts in Python. It's also a great way to learn some coding basics. So please tell me why this is bad and what I should do instead.

this post is no man's land

I sure am glad that we learned our lesson from the marketing campaigns in the 90's that pushed consumers to recycle their plastic single-use products to deflect attention away from the harm caused by their ubiquitous use in manufacturing.

Fuck those AI users for screwing over small creators and burning down the planet though. I see no problem with this framing.

I would not to get close to bike repaired by someone who is using ai to do it. Like what the fuck xd I am not surprised he is unable to make code work then xddd

My issues are fundsmentally two fold with gen AI:

1. Who owns and controls it (billionares and entrenched corporations)

2. How it is shoehorned into everything (decision making processes, human-to-human communication, my coffee machine)

I cannot wait until finally the check is due and the AI bubble pops; folding this digital snake oil sellers' house of cards.

They only real exception I can think of would be to train an AI ENTIRELY on your own personally created material. No sources from other people AT ALL. Used purely for personal use, not used or available for use by the public.

I use LLMs in a way that reduces social anxiety from my autism, I give it details of a strange social interaction that I could not parse on my own and ask if I should worry about it, or if I should make any kind of amends or inquiries, or if I'm over thinking something and leave it alone.

I use LLMs to bounce my own ideas off of that I'm not comfortable bouncing off someone I know IRL.

I use LLM's to role play. (all kinds)

I use LLM's to find things that I can't find via conventional research methods.

And you know what, my perspective on using it for "productive/generative" usage is nuanced. I get why artists and writers are upset, however there is nothing magical about human's and their artistic abilities and in terms of material economic impacts automation of various kinds has screwed working people in the past and generally I've seen a lot less push back.

I do think that generated images and writing is pretty bland and near worthless though without a ton of human done work atm anyway. Like, sure I could generate a video of a cat dancing on a moving bus while a nuclear bomb is going off in the background or whatever wacky shit with a simple prompt but what exactly am I even going to do with that?

Highly directed AI content that includes a lot of human work tends to actually be pretty amazing IMO.

And even though all the outrage pertains to intellectual work, this technology is going to likely result in a lot of blue collar work being automated via "embodied" neural network AI's. In fact, it may be that it was needed for this kind of automation to really take off at all. Its not just white collar work. We aren't just automating slop content and corporate purposed art. The day is coming when stuff like laundry, factory/warehouse work, and kitchen work, etc. is also all being done by robots.

Do y'all hate chess engines?

If yes, cool.

If no, I think you hate tech companies more than you hate AI specifically.

Honestly I have nothing to add

I feel this way about people who eat meat.

Sorry but you can deny and hate all you want, it’s not going anywhere

I'm just sick of all this because we gave to "AI" too much meaning.

I don't like Generative AI tools like LLMs, image generators, voice, video etc because i see no interests in that, I think they give bad habits, and they are not understood well by their users.

Yesterday again i had to correct my mother because she told me some fun fact she had learnt by chatGPT, (that was wrong), and she refused to listen to me because "ChatGPT do plenty of researches on the net so it should know better than you".

About the thing that "it will replace artists and destroy art industry", I don't believe in that, (even if i made the choice to never use it), because it will forever be a tool. It's practical if you want a cartoony monkey image for your article (you meanie stupid journalist) but you can't say "make me a piece of art" and then put it on a museum.

Making art myself, i hate Gen AI slop from the deep of my heart but i'm obligated to admit that. (Let's not forget how it trains on copirighted media, use shitton of energy, and give no credits)

AI in others fields, like medecine, automatic subtitles, engineering, is fine for me. It won't give bad habits, it is well understood by its users, and it is truly benefical, as in being more efficient to save lifes than humans, or simply being helpful to disabled people.

TL,DR AI in general is a tool. Gen AI is bad as a powerful tool for everyone's use like it is bad to give to everyone an helicopter (even if it improves mobility). AI is nonetheless a very nice tool that can save lifes and help disabled peoples IF used and understood correctly and fairly.

AI is a marketing term. Big Tech stole ALL data. All of it. The brazen piracy is a sign they feel untouchable. We should touch them.

the fact that it is theft

There are LLMs trained using fully open datasets that do not contain proprietary material... (CommonCorpus dataset, OLMo)

the fact that it is environmentally harmful

There are LLMs trained with minimal power (typically the same ones as above as these projects cannot afford as much resources), and local LLMs use signiciantly less power than a toaster or microwave...

the fact that it cuts back on critical, active thought

This is a usecase problem. LLMs aren't suitable for critical thinking or decision making tasks, so if it's cutting back on your "critical, active thought" you're just using it wrong anyway...

The OOP genuinely doesn't know what they're talking about and are just reacting to sensationalized rage bait on the internet lmao

Generative AI and their outputs are derived products of their training data. I mean this ethically, not legally; I'm not a copyright lawyer.

Using the output for personal viewing (advice, science questions, or jacking off to AI porn you requested) is weird but ethical. It's equivalent to pirating a movie to watch at home.

But as soon as you show someone else the output, I consider it theft without attribution. If you generate a meme image, you're failing to attribute the artists whose work trained the AI without permission. If you generate code, that code infringes the numerous open source licenses of the training data, by failing to attribute it.

Even a simple lemmy text post generated by AI is derived from thousands of unattributed novels.