• dustyData@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Why argue with someone who isn’t intelligent enough to write their essays without mechanical assistance?

    • uranibaba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I want a more diverse discussion about LLM and AI, not the default ”AI bad” response that is so common here. :(

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Then stop dismissing other people’s “argumentets”. Unfortunately, most AI proponents don’t realize that the AI use case that is being pushed by it’s makers and owners is not “a tool to assist users”, but “a tool for executives to replace humans”. Is it a dumb proposal? absolutely. It doesn’t reduce the moral responsibility of those promoting AI. They are supporting the destruction of people’s livelihoods to make the wealthiest human being in history slightly wealthier, and curse knowledge workers to poverty just like factory workers were in their time by the exact same political and economic class of soulless pricks.

        • uranibaba@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          If the argument want as you have laid it out, I would not dismiss it. But I cannot do that when the arguemnt is ”hammers in general are bad because I cannot use them to drive to work” or ”also your essay fucking sucks. learn to put together a coherent thought instead of relying on a glorified autocorrect that doesn’t have them at all to do it for you”. That second one is an actual quote.

          What you bring up is how a few people is power are using AI to increase their wealth without regards for human suffering. I agree that what they are doing is wrong. And the discussion should be about how AI affects our society, how it is used and who controls it. This does not make AI a bad tool, it makes it a tool that can used in a bad way to cause a lot of harm.

          • dustyData@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            “If the argument want as you have laid it out, I would not dismiss it.”

            Your autocorrect software is failing you.

            What is your argument? It is OK for a few people to hurt others, since you personally are benefiting, in a very small way, from the cruelty? That’s a shit argument to make.

            If AI is “just a tool”, then how come it doesn’t do any of the things it is promised to do? The issue is not expecting “a hammer to drive to work”. The problem is that LLMs makers promised a car, you order one, and receive a screwdriver on the mail. Because “screwdrivers are just a tool, you can use it to assemble a car”. It’s a scam, it is fraud, it is lying and stealing from others to capitalize on bad tech.

            If AI is just a tool, its an unethical and immoral tool.

            • uranibaba@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              22 hours ago

              I’m trying to say that one should call a fraud a fraud, not a bad screwdriver.
              You want to have a discussion about the fraud? Don’t say that screwdriver suck, say that it did not do what is was advertised to do.

              It is OK for a few people to hurt others, since you personally are benefiting, in a very small way, from the cruelty?

              That is not what I tried to say.

              • dustyData@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                19 hours ago

                Want to discuss the technical qualities of napalm?

                I mean, it’s obviously not a “bad” tool of warfare, it’s just the bad people who use it. It obviously is a separate issue from war crimes committed with it, there’s nothing inherently wrong with napalm.

                This idea that technology must be evaluated on a vacuum, disconnected from the context that created and uses it, is disingenuous at best and malicious at its worst. Technology, tools, inventions, carry with them the moral and ethical burden of their historical context.

                LLMs as we know them today, came to be from massive theft, and continue to promote their own use and improvement with further thievery, fraud and lies. The fraud is not a separate topic, it’s intrinsically a part of LLMs. To speak of LLMs is to speak about fraud, copyright infringement and theft. They cannot exist without theft, at least not in their current level of prowess and use. To defend them is to promote corporate crimes on a billion dollars and worldwide scale. This is just one of the many axis of analysis that concludes with, “AI is a bad tool, actually”.

                • uranibaba@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  18 hours ago

                  If you want to shit on OpenAI because you think they stink, that is fine. If you want to shit on their LLM because you think it sucks, that is also fine. But don’t say that the concept of LLM sucks because OpenAI and their product is bad or their marketing of said product. Say that LLM sucks because there is no regulation and companies are using this to hurt people. Say that OpenAIs LLM suck because they took from the people to create it without giving back. Don’t say that OpenAIs LLM cannot produce good output becuase they stole, because the output is good. Stealing is still wrong. Don’t say that someone else is worse at what they are doing because they used an LLM. Say that they are worse at what they are doing because (and if) they cannot do it without an LLM.

                  It would be a nice discussion if you did not try to argue on bad faith. Of course I don’t want to compare something that is meant to kill with something that could if you really try. Should be ban ropes because you can strangle people with them? Of course not, that’s stupid and you know it.

                  • dustyData@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    16 hours ago

                    But, the output is trash. Only incompetent people think LLMs produce great results. They don’t.

    • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I wonder why anyone would want an “AI girlfriend” or whatever ridiculous thing tech bros are trying to shoehorn monetization into to capitalize on the pervasive disconnect in society today.

      And then, when I read a post like yours, referring to someone like that, it all suddenly makes sense. Given the choice, I’d also rather spend time with unthinking silicon than an asshole who talks to people like you do.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Weak argument, dude

      Did you use your computers spell check, ever? Cuz you’d fall for your own smart-assery if you did

      “Why argue with someone who needs something else to write the essay for them” might be better