this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
1039 points (95.2% liked)

Memes

45753 readers
2493 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 108 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's been a while since I've seen this meme template being used correctly

[–] CodexArcanum 46 points 4 months ago

Turns out, most people think their stupid views are actually genius

[–] [email protected] 106 points 4 months ago (6 children)

So the problem isn't the technology. The problem is unethical big corporations.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] pyre 10 points 4 months ago (4 children)

depends. for "AI" "art" the problem is both terms are lies. there is no intelligence and there is no art.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

Any work made to convey a concept and/or emotion can be art. I'd throw in "intent", having "deeper meaning", and the context of its creation to distinguish between an accounting spreadsheet and art.

The problem with AI "art" is it's produced by something that isn't sentient and is incapable of original thought. AI doesn't understand intent, context, emotion, or even the most basic concepts behind the prompt or the end result. Its "art" is merely a mashup of ideas stolen from countless works of actual, original art run through an esoteric logic network.

AI can serve as a tool to create art of course, but the further removed from the process a human is the less the end result can truly be considered "art".

[–] Holyhandgrenade 2 points 4 months ago
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] pyre 3 points 4 months ago (9 children)

i won't, but art has intent. AI doesn't.

Pollock's paintings are art. a bunch of paint buckets falling on a canvas in an earthquake wouldn't make art, even if it resembled Pollock's paintings. there's no intent behind it. no artist.

[–] AdrianTheFrog 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The intent comes from the person who writes the prompt and selects/refines the most fitting image it makes

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (13 children)

AI is a tool used by a human. The human using the tools has an intention, wants to create something with it.

It's exactly the same as painting digital art. But instead o moving the mouse around, or copying other images into a collage, you use the AI tool, which can be pretty complex to use to create something beautiful.

Do you know what generative art is? It existed before AI. Surely with your gatekeeping you think that's also no art.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

there is no intelligence and there is no art.

People said exact same thing about CGI, and photography before. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody scream "IT'S NOT ART" at Michaelangelo or people carving walls of temples in ancient Egypt.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Always has been

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

This has been going on since big oil popularized the "carbon footprint". They want us arguing with each other about how useful crypto/AI/whatever are instead of agreeing about pigouvian energy taxes and socialized control of the (already monopolized) grid.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bassomitron 42 points 4 months ago (2 children)

But what if we use AI in robots and have them go out with giant vacuums to suck up all the bad gasses?

My climate change solution consultation services are available for hire anytime.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 months ago

Careful! Last time I sarcastically posted a stupid AI idea, within minutes a bunch of venture capitalists tracked me down, broke down my door and threw money at me non stop for hours.

[–] SlopppyEngineer 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Robots figuring out that without humans releasing gas their job is a lot more efficient could cause a few problems.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Don't worry, they will figure out that without humans releasing gasses they have no purpose, so they will cull most of the human population but keep just enough to justify their existence to manage it.

Although you don't need AI to figure that one out. Just look at the relationships between the US intelligence and military and "terrorist groups".

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife 3 points 4 months ago

Don’t worry, they will figure out that without humans releasing gasses they have no purpose, so they will cull most of the human population but keep just enough to justify their existence to manage it.

Unfortunately this statement also applies to the 1%. And the "just enough" will get smaller and smaller as AI and automation replace humans.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It’s wild how we went from…

Critics: “Crypto is an energy hog and its main use case is a convoluted pyramid scheme”

Boosters: “Bro trust me bro, there are legit use cases and energy consumption has already been reduced in several prototype implementations”

…to…

Critics: “AI is an energy hog and its main use case is a convoluted labor exploitation scheme”

Boosters: “Bro trust me bro, there are legit use cases and energy consumption has already been reduced in several prototype implementations”

[–] SleezyDizasta 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They're not really comparable. Crypto and blockchain were good solutions looking for problems to solve. They're innovative and cool? Sure, but they never had a widescale use. AI has been around for awhile, it just got recently rebranded as artificial intellectual, the same technologies were called algorithms a few years ago... And they basically run the internet and the global economy. Hospitals, schools, corporations, governments, the militaries, etc all use them. Maybe certain uses of AI are dumb, but trying to pretend that the thing as a whole doesn't have, or rather already has, genuine uses is just dumb

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I feel like you're being incredibly generous with the usage of AI here. I feel as though the post and comment above refer to LLM/image generation AI. Those "types of 'AI'" certainly don't run all those things.

[–] SleezyDizasta 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The term AI is very vague because intelligence is an inherently subjective concept. If we're defining AI as something that has consciousness then it doesn't exist, but if we're defining it as a task that a computer can do on it's own, then virtually everything that is automated is run by AI.

Even with generative AI models, they've been around for a while too. For example, lot of the news articles you read, especially about the weather or news aren't written by actual people, they're AI generated. Another example would be scientific simulations, they use AI to generate a bunch of possible scenarios based on given parameters. Yet another example would be the gaming industry, what do you think generates Minecraft worlds? The point here is that AI has been around for awhile and is already being used everywhere. What we're seeing with chatGPT and these other new models is that these models are now being released for public access. It's like democratization of AI, and a lot of good and bad things are bound to come of it. We're at the infancy stage of this now, but just like with the world wide web before it, these technologies are going to fundamentally change how we do many things from now on.

We can't fight technology, that's a losing battle. These AIs are here and they're here to stay. So strap on and enjoy the ride.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I think you misunderstood me, I'm not trying to make some point about "LLMs aren't 'real AI'" or even what is and is not AI. I'm just saying the post is talking about that type of AI specifically and I wouldn't say those types are controlling that much of the world.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (3 children)

This conveniently ignores the progress being made with smaller and smaller models in the open source community.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Nowadays you can actually get a semi decent chat bot working on a n100 that consumes next to nothing even at full charge.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

As with literally every technical progress, tech itself is no problem, capitalism usage of it is.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] then_three_more 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It's almost all if Google chasing a quick buck is the issue.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NutWrench 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Stupid AI will destroy humanity. But the important thing to remember is that for a brief, shining moment, profit will be made.

[–] suction 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] exanime 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And all for some drunken answers and a few new memes

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In my country this kind of AI is being used to more efficiently find tax fraud and to create chatbots for users to understand taxes, that due to the much more reliable and limited training set does not allucinate and can provide clear sources for the information given.

[–] exanime 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Which magical country is this? Can I come?

;-)

I'm actually curious (kind of desperate for some good news nowadays). Not trying to make fun of you

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Spain. AEAT is out tax authority and has begun using AI in recent years, as an early adopter. The Spanish government in general seems very favorable towards AI and it's funding a nationally trained model.

https://sede.agenciatributaria.gob.es/Sede/en_gb/gobierno-abierto/transparencia/informacion-institucional-organizativa-planificacion/inteligencia-artificial.html?faqId=376c6e2f72610910VgnVCM100000dc381e0aRCRD

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Personally I think AI systems will kill us dead simply by having no idea what to do, dodgy old coots thinking machines are magic and know everything when in reality machines can barely approximate what we tell them to do and base their information on this terrible approximation.

[–] ChapulinColorado 5 points 4 months ago

Machines will do exactly what you tell them to do and is the cause of many software bugs. That’s kind of the problem, no matter how elegant the algorithm, fuzzy goes in, fuzzy comes out. It was clear this very basic principle was not even considered when Google started telling people to eat rocks and glue. You can’t patch special cases out when they are so poorly understood.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Not only the pollution.

It has triggered an economic race to the bottom for any industry that can incorporate it. Employers will be forced to replace more workers with AI to keep prices competitive. And that is a lot of industries, especially if AI continues its growth.
The result is a lot of unemployment, which means an economic slowdown due to a lack of discretionary spending, which is a feedback loop.

There are only 3 outcomes I can imagine:

  1. AI fizzles out. It can't maintain its advancement enough to impress execs.
  2. An unimaginable wealth disparity and probably a return to something like feudalism.
  3. social revolution where AI is taken out of the hands of owners and placed into the hands of workers. Would require changes that we'd consider radically socialist now, like UBI and strong af social safety nets.

The second seems more likely than the third, and I consider that more or less a destruction of humanity

[–] Frostbeard 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I don't like to use relative numbers to illustrate the increase. 48% can be miniscule or enormous based on the emission last year.

While I don't think the increase is miniscule it's still an unessesary ambiguity.

[–] elrik 18 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The relative number here might be more useful as long as it's understood that Google already has significant emissions. It's also sufficient to convey that they're headed in the wrong direction relative to their goal of net zero. A number like 14.3 million tCO₂e isn't as clear IMO.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hoogic 4 points 4 months ago

wait until the curveless anon comes in

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are some pretty smart/knowledgeable people in the left camp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ziuPUeewK0

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Miles is chill in my book. I appreciate what he is tackling, and hope he continues.

It seems that there are much worse issues with AI systems that are happening right now. I think those issues should be taking precedent over the alignment problem.

Some of the issues are bad enough right now that AI development and use should be banned for a limited time frame (at least 5 years) while we figure out more ethical ways of doing it. The fact that we aren't doing that is a massive failure of our already constantly-fucking-up governments.

[–] SomeGuy69 2 points 4 months ago

Where's the "If AI destroys humanity, we deserved it"?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

The way it's done at this current moment is in no way sustainable. Once we start seeing better dedicated hardware for doing ai on client side hardware and remove the need to use massive GPU farms. AI is cool but it's like driving a tank to the grocery store. We need the Prius of ai.

load more comments
view more: next ›