After I made this unrelated post, I was informed by @MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com that lemmy.dbzer0.com was a pro-genAI instance.
It was honestly shocking for me to hear that these two things can coexist and I would like to share the discussion which was correctly moved for being off topic from the above linked post.
I think we owe it to ourselves to discuss topics like this with an open mind.
Here is my statements in reply to MysticMushroom1776, I wasn't able to record their reply before it was removed for being off topic bit I hope they can come here and we can continue the discussion.
Others, please also feel free to discuss with us.
'Wow, I didn't know [that lemmy.dbzer0.com was a pro genAI instance] As an anarchist myself I have to say that is really disappointing.
Anarchist communities [especially in real life] need humans otherwise there is no community. GenAl is a stolen facsimile of a human who can never understand morals or praxis. It can never understand freedom or control. It will however poison our communities (look at what SpaceX/Anthropic is doing in Memphis, TN) make us more predictable (and thus easier to control) and isolate us from other humans within the community which is so important to us.
Even with the most moral genAl you can possibly have, one that is totally FOSS and self hosted on a single gaming GPU, a lot of this is still true.
Obviously, this is the wrong place but I have to ask,[prior to moving the discussion to this thread] what makes you think the extreme negatives of genAl (specifically to the anarchist community) can be excused?... [I do not have a copy of mushroom's reply]
I pirate and seed. I'm also a fan of the megathread And for the most part, I think data is data. However there is a big difference between my pirating a book like the Lord of the Rings (which is credited and I can see the title of) and how Meta scraped Anna's archive and funneled all that data into an approximation of all combined work.
If I pirate the book, the Lord of the Rings to read it. I might enjoy it, I might talk about it to others, quote it, share it with my daughter, I might use the ring of power an an allegory for authoritarian control with a powerful technology, I might even decide to buy my own copies of the book.
What Meta did and then released as open source, won't allow a person the freedom to do any of that. The works were consumed and are used in silence to camouflage as human thought. No credit will ever be contributed. And so no one can even hope to appreciate the original works that was used in training.
The other concerns I have with (local) genAI that I think are deeply important to anarchists specifically.
- Isolation of humanity
- severing of our ties to community
- increasing predictability
- method of control
Photo is genAI made and sourced from the following article:
213 Comments
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus · 49 pts · 1d
My background is that I am a PhD student in STEM. I'm not gonna doxx myself, but my research area is in mathematical systems theory. LLM systems are not my primary research area, but I have taken advanced coursework on classical machine learning, and LLMs will certainly affect my research area from a technical perspective. So I am obligated to understand LLMs, reinforcement learning systems, deep learning algorithms, classical machine learning systems, and basically the rest of "artificial intelligence" from a theoretical, mathematical point of view. In addition, I use LLMs extensively as a LaTeX assistant, to generate counterexamples, and to "fill in" proofs when I read math books.
I am also a lifelong anarchist.
Absolutely. Anarchist users of LLMs do not intend to replace the human element. Literally the opposite.
I don't oppose proletarians "stealing" "copyrighted" work. Copyright is classically anti-anarchist rentier behavior. What I do oppose, and I believe you're pointing to, are a few related but distinct problems with AI systems as they exist today:
All of these problems are serious critiques of AI systems as tools. What you'll notice about all four of these, however, is that they are primarily socially driven phenomena. These problems are contingent on the existence of hierarchical social relations. In fact, these problems have pre-AI counterparts:
"AI" systems can't understand anything. They are mathematical algorithms implemented on silicon-based computers.
This is not an inherent feature of the technology. We could have absolutely trained these models, albeit at a vastly slower sustainable pace, through the use of distributed and decentralized computing strategies. The issue is that the perverse incentivization structure of capitalism pushed AI companies to grow unsustainably, at great expense to the ecosystem and the people of the world. I.e.: capitalist interests of quick money and infinite expansion triumphed over proletarian interests of survival, dignity, freedom, and sustainability, as usual.
And it is my view, as an anarcho-communist, that by seizing the means of production from the capitalists, in particular their AI hardware, and distributing these systems more equitably around the world, we can remake these AI systems to some extent into sustainable systems at an ecologically appropriate scale. At least we would be able to try â capitalists, as monstrous as they are, never even try to do things correctly.
I cannot stress enough that I do not want to see AI replace humans in human-centered tasks. In particular, I am completely uninterested in AI-generated "drawings" or "music". Art is an activity by sentient beings. Unedited AI "art" can be technically competent (or not), but it is ultimately just a product of a machine and therefore not tremendously compelling to me.
And I also agree that we are seeing a crisis of isolation, but my view is that:
The extreme negatives of AI must not be excused.
They must be confronted and ruthlessly reversed. And in order to do this, we must conduct a holistic analysis of why AI technologies enable these heinous things. This is impossible to conduct, i.e. useless, without relating these technologies to the social relations that motivate these technologies to destroy for their masters. Anarchists who use AI systems do not, in general, excuse these systems or their users. To the best of our abilities, we use them with the care required not to replicate capitalist harms. And we must be held accountable for our failures on that front.
Not really, no. I would have zero problems if you personally did that in a way that didn't destroy the ecology, and then released your weights, model architecture, data, and training proces. In fact, in my view, you would be doing the world a great service. It is my personal hope that we live long enough (we as proletarians living in a world doomed by capitalists) so that I can someday train an AI on all of Anna's Archive. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but that would be so unbelievably fucking cool and useful.
* weight available, not open source. Huge difference: you cannot reasonably recreate Meta's model weights on your own. In my view, besides being unethical, it's bad data science because it's not reproducible!
Yeah I can live that. E.g., I don't cite my calculus textbook every time I use calculus in a paper. I cite the things that must be cited. And when I wrote my metal album ten years ago, I didn't credit any artists, even though my work obviously draws from the work of dozens of metal bands. And I don't expect to receive any credit if my work influences someone else's music, or even if it gets sampled, and that thought doesn't bother me at all. It would be neat if someone did shout out my work, I'd appreciate it, but really I'm just happy if someone listens to it. (Not gonna post my album here because that would insta-doxx me lol. You're not missing out on much đ.)
These are my views on AI systems:
Lastly, this comment was written by a real autistic human on a cell phone with zero AI assistance, as are all my comments. Yes I actually write like this đ
yyprum@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 1d
Wow, just wow. I love your comment and fully agree with what you say based on what I know as a software dev with a deep background in math and cumputer vision (my master's thesis was on facial recognition). The thing is that you explain incredibly well. And I had to say that this point you make is specially interesting and is making me think a lot:
"We cannot mathematically prove yet *why* this is the case, but this was practically seen to be the case. I personally suspect that natural language has some deep underlying structure that we cannot see yet, but informs both the AI's ability to learn\*, *and* our ability as humans to learn."
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and knowledge.
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus · 8 pts · 1d
You're very welcome, and thank you for reading!
Please I beg you do not change this typo đ
atearinspace@retrofed.com · 6 pts · 1d
Thank you for this! It really put a lot of my thoughts into words along with some deeper insight. I think if we are going to push for a better society then we need to pay attention to people like you who are experts in the field and can really tease apart the pros and cons of things like this.
I see a bit of a panic in current anti-AI sentiment at the moment, and honestly rightfully so, as it is being weaponized against us. But to outright dismiss it or to try to put the genie back in the bottle could be shooting ourselves in the foot. If we can take control of it ourselves and push out the capitalists we could have something that is genuinely useful, and most importantly, ours.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 6 pts · 1d
First, thank you for writing this well thought out reply. I do have some things I'd like to clarify or ask.
If the issue of resources required nfor training is purely corporate, then why did deepseek use the resources it did for training? It is true they were able to train the model much cheaper than the corporate models, but the scale of the training and amount of resources used was still much larger than one might have expected if the issue was purely a corporate one. Although there is something to be said about geopolitics and Chinese state influence (which is extremely capitalist)
Totally agree, the issue is not caused by genAI, but this issue is something that in my opinion prevents us from forming the societies we want to live in. It is something I have been giving a lot of thought too before the wide-spread adoption of gen-ai and it is something I keep seeing in the people that use it as a tool to get something important to them done. So many would rather hope an AI translation app works then to ask a friend to help them translate. Or to ask a neighbor to help them with planning a garden. I think using genAI as a convenience limits us from building solidarity with eachother.
I'm not offended by this, but I do think the current iteration of genAI not being able to credit creators means that information is siloed and harder to extract. Maybe that changes in the future?
Yeah, I can cop to that. Im not an expert and I don't claim to be.
I've actually ran models locally that I converted to gguf from huggingface before, I've also fine tuned and but a rag system before, but I'll check out the book. Thanks for the recommendation.
Thank you.
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus · 6 pts · 1d
So first of all, there is a difference between using X total resources over three years versus using X total resources over three decades. A more extreme example is the difference between burning a full tank of gas over a few days of driving versus burning all that gas at once by lighting it on fire.
China's contributions to the AI race are, in my view, tarnished by many of the same problems as Western AI systems, since China is (state) capitalist. (That being said, Chinese companies do usually make their models weight-available, which is commendable, but not enough.)
While I suspect that we have not thrown enough theoretical math at the problem of LLM training (we have thrown lots of empirical math at them; useful for guiding the development of theory, but not theory itself), I also suspect (frankly based on my limited experience training and using these things) that the useful structural properties of LLMs only manifest themselves when you train with large datasets.
So the problem of large datasets is, in fact, an inherent part of the technology. My view is that we have to tackle these things head on.
Distributed computing. Internally, LLM companies are computing at such a scale that they already must use distributed computing technologies to spread the load out amongst many machines. My vision would be something like BOINC, where people and collectives who benefit from AI systems can give limited access to the computing power of their systems. Note that AI Horde does something like this for inference. Hence why it is so important to seize the means of production from the capitalist class. Not ask, take! They have the tools and power to do this sustainably, but they chose to do it wrong so they could make a quick bag.
Leverage existing resources sustainably. The logic here is that individuals and collectives spreading out the effort won't necessarily save resources or energy integrated over the whole planet. In fact, as a planet, we might spend more energy on a geographically distributed system if it is done at the scale AI companies are doing it. However, the issue is not just "we're spending too much energy "; it's "we're spending too much energy, too fast, and we are overloading and obliterating local ecosystems, and we are doing it in a way that exacerbates existing climate". I.e., it's not just quantity, but also space and computing time whose distribution is mismatched.
Like what the capitalists have pushed on us in basically three years...it really should have taken at least a decade.
Depends on what I need help translating. Basic Spanish? I'll ask my mom. Farsi? I don't know anyone personally who speaks Farsi, to the best of my knowledge. Advanced Spanish? Ain't no way my mom's gonna beat a machine, even a pre-2023 AI translator. I could go hire a translator, but I suspect that they have more important things to translate. I.e., translation is usually a routine task, and human translators can show up for the fun stuff (translations that require human supervision).
I wouldn't ask AI personally. I would probably look on LibGen for botany books, or drop a post on Lemmy since I'm sure there are a few botanists lurking around.
It can, but it doesn't have to. And I think that a lot of those examples are people misusing the tech. In particular, people are using the tech to "solve" problems with simple, well-understood solutions. LLM systems are suited for problems without algorithmic solutions, where either a partial and/or approximate solution is better than none at all.
I would argue that at least for math, you can actually get really far by telling the AI to cite its sources in the system prompt and giving the harness access to your PDF library (I do this in a virtual machine with a subset of my actual library that I have backed up in case I lose it). (And of course you triple check the citation it gives you.)
Also, the thing about math in particular is that we do not particularly disagree with the capitalists about mathematics. We all agree that 2+2=4 and the indefinite integral of cos(t) is sin(t) + C. And we also widely agree on how to typeset mathematics, namely "rewrite unreadable spaghetti code in LaTeX until the rendered PDF looks gorgeous." So a LLM with a capitalist bias... isn't really a problem for math typesetting questions. Conversely, I would never ask a capitalist LLM to, say, summarize the contents of Mutual Aid by Kropotkin, even if I give the system the PDF. (Most capitalist LLMs probably do recall the broad contents of Mutual Aid and the most important texts in anarchist theory, simply because they sucked up all our literature too.) I think there are other walks of life where anarchists and other class-conscious proletarians do not disagree with the capitalists, although personally my disagreements with capitalists are extremely broad, almost universal, so I understand if people have trouble finding common ground with them!
That wasn't just aimed at you ... that holds for everyone, myself included. Again, the capitalists are overselling the convergence to AGI specifically...but things are moving incredibly fast. So if you're not using the systems regularly, it's honestly going to be very difficult to keep up with the development of the tech. (I'm not saying that you should necessarily start using AI systems regularly just to keep up; it will suffice to just remember that your knowledge might be out of date by the time you finish your argument.)
A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1d
Have you ever considered writing theory?
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus · 12 pts · 1d
Yes lol, but I currently don't think I'm up to the task (yet) of writing anarchist theory. Mathematical theory yes, oh God yes đ
postcapitalism@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 1d
Thank you for the lovely post, as I am also working to grapple with the impacts of AI from an Anarchist perspective
hatingfedizen@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 9h
A bit off-topic: I'm looking to de-rust my calculus and linear algebra skills. I have taken courses on Machine Learning and Deep Learning but they were mostly applied rather than theory. I could explain most operations and phenomena like exploding/diminishing gradient but I'm not sure if I could explain it in a formulaic way. I tried taking RL course, and while I understand the concepts, when it comes to understanding the formulas I found myself quite lost. I feel like I have forgotten some of the foundations.
Any book / course you'd recommend for this? I even thought about paying for something like Brilliant but I'm very hesitant about that.
AVincentInSpace@pawb.social · 1 pts · 1d
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus · 5 pts · 1d
No, I did not exclusively refer to LLMs as "AI", I referred to them as LLMs. (My view is that LLM (large language model) is a reasonable and accurate name for that class of algorithms.)
I referred to systems using various "artificial intelligence" algorithms, often including LLMs, as "AI systems". Admittedly, I sometimes forgot to use the scare quotes around "AI" and "artificial intelligence" because I thought it would be clear from the content how I feel about these terms...and I was writing this from my bed with my cellphone, so Ctrl+F and Ctrl+R weren't available. My preferred terminology would be "systems driven by statistical learning algorithms", but I decided to write that comment using the popular terminology because otherwise, I would have to begin my comment with a list of definitions. In academic work, this is actually what I would do, but in a casual online forum, beginning with a list of definitions would likely be seen as "word games".
I think that you can understand that even though I don't agree with the popular terminology, I found it more accessible to communicate my point using the popular terminology...part of which includes my disagreement with the terminology and why.
RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip · 35 pts · 2d
Some people think anarchism is doing whatever you want with no regard for others.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 34 pts · 2d
Which is funny because anarchism is fundamentally built on empathy
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · 4 pts · 1d
Empathy is to compassion as square is to rectangle. Please don't forget the other rectangles.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1d
Fair!
SaltyPeanutTesticles@futurology.today · -3 pts · 1d
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
The "Palestinians are not people" guys?
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 5 pts · 2d
I find a lot of them have very thin skin.
RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip · 7 pts · 1d
Especially when you downvote a single post on their slop communities so they ban you from every community they mod.
Not talking about anyone specific tho.
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · 7 pts · 1d
Or when you've never seen their slop communities and get banned from the one real community they moderate with their delusions cited in a mass ban from everything they moderate. Obnoxious.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 1d
Lol
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · 1 pts · 1d
Including after never interacting with them. Fucking sloppers man istf, they're so conditioned by the mechanical sycophant that just letting your gaze wander by them without getting on your knees and tearing their pants off is a grave insult. They seriously aren't even people.
SaltyPeanutTesticles@futurology.today · -5 pts · 1d
RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip · 6 pts · 1d
okay you need to calm the fuck down
SaltyPeanutTesticles@futurology.today · -3 pts · 1d
PapaSkwat@lemmy.today · -4 pts · 1d
Well, I guess you are seeing the shit we deal with daily. This shit is the reason some of us pull out our ban-hammers so fast.
His account is 17 minutes old. Probably the same guy who started an account this morning and got banned in PTB community, for saying the stuff.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
Fixed it for you. Yes a lot of anarchists are more than happy to step on capitalists claiming to own ideas or concepts. Copyright and intellectual property are capitalist constructs and despite being Fuck_AI's favorite talking point are not something we consider valid or worthy of following. Though we host !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com so that shouldn't be a surprise to you.
RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip · 0 pts · 1d
"Everyone I disagree with is a capitalist" and other arguments by the mentally numbed.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
disengage
RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip · 0 pts · 1d
SaltyPeanutTesticles@futurology.today · -4 pts · 1d
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 27 pts · 1d
We're not indiscriminately pro-genai. We don't promote corporate genai. Here's our actual stance. https://wiki.dbzer0.com/divisions-by-zero/the-genai-tag/
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 11 pts · 1d
Thank you, this is helpful
AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 26 pts · 1d
I donât use genAI basically at all, but I have experience with machine learning in general. Hereâs my take:
Generative AI itself is literally just statistical modeling. Very complicated statistical modeling/prediction but still the same idea as any other method for prediction/classification.
The only problem is how certain models are trained and/or used.
You can (and imo should because itâs fun/interesting) create your own generative AI using responsibly sourced training data and open source code. Is that a crime? Does that hurt anyone? Does that harm society as a whole? No.
The concept of âGenAIâ is not the problem. In fact, utilizing it for protien/drug discovery is pretty fucking cool, as is the fact it makes language translation significantly more accessible and accurate.
The problems you listed mostly apply to strictly corporate GenAI models. They are problematic not because they are generative statistical models but because they are built, maintained, controlled, and used by capitalist institutions in a capitalist society which allows them to do any damage they want as long as they can continue
bribing politicianslining the pockets of investorsCubitOom@infosec.pub · -2 pts · 1d
I mostly agree with you in threory.
However, I do think the issues I've brought up exist even if it is not a corporate model. That is because most people will not be making their own llm.
Just like in theory people could make their own operating system for their computer, the same way that Linus did. Most people will not go that route, they will use the kernel, maybe they might make a distro, but they aren't willing to make it entirely from scratch.
So when it comes to using genAI, you are going to have a lot of people (including leftists) just using a corporate model, then you have a smaller subset trying out "open" models like deepseek, then a smaller subset locally hosting a distilled model, and a smaller subset fine tuning a model or using RAG, and smaller and smaller subsets of people maybe try to build something on their own.
So in reality, most of these users will be making predictable and easily influenced output using these tools.
Also, I think the basic function of these tools, which will be true for open or corporate models, makes us less dependent on eachother, which I think will lead to even more self centered societies then we currently have and not the community centric goal that I think a lot of us share.
AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 1d
The db0 instanceâs official stance is against using corpo AI, so youâre talking to the smaller subset already. So any arguments based on âmost peopleâ arenât really relevant to the complaint youâve made about this instance.
If youâre talking about the AI output, predictability is kinda the point. If youâre talking about the âinfluenceâ effect it has on certain people, watching youtubers or consuming any media can also influence people significantly. Does this mean listening to or creating podcasts is unethical and shouldnât be tolerated? No, it means you should be careful what kind of media you consume regardless of its source. I am reasonably certain everyone on this instance knows genAI is quite fallible and biased.
First, there is a difference between dependence and dependability.
Secondly, one could make this argument about any information sharing system ever. Youtube tutorials have made people less dependent on repair-men. Does that mean tutorials on how to fix an air conditioner are unethical?
Furthermore, genAI is a hobby for some people (especially those on this instance who use it). People like sharing cool things they made with/about their hobbies, and finding people with shared interests is a great way to build a sense of community. However, if an instance were to assert that no use of genAI is ethical ever, that would alienate people who use it in an ethical way, preventing/discouraging them from sharing/creating and/or participating in communities that they would have otherwise. Iâd argue that is literally, directly against the âcommunity centric goalâ which âa lot of us share.â
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 0 pts · 1d
All fair points, thanks.
PapaSkwat@lemmy.today · -5 pts · 1d
Great write-up!
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
Pretend you're vegan for me, and that people eating meat in front of you physically grosses you out.
Are you going to be the militant fundamentalist vegan who wants ALL animal products banned? Or are you going to be more pragmatic, understand that some people have more reach for meat-independence than others?
Because the Vegans I know and respect will celebrate a barbecue bro enjoying meatless Mondays.
But even this neglects some fascinating phenomena: deepseek has captured a LARGE part of the American LLM market on price alone. The inability to build a Data Mine that respects the neighbors is stalling the US chud-companies. Deepseek and Kimi K3 now outperform Claude in some tests for less than 20% of the price.
If I didn't know better, I'd say China is trying to pop the AI bubble that's propping up the US stock market. They're doing it with superior engineering on "inferior" (read: accessible, less bitcoin-mining-right-turned cancer-for-a-building) hardware. China is doing it by rescuing us from sky high memory prices by Xmas 2027, and GPUs by xmas 2028.
Collapse the price of the hardware, suddenly those absurdly large investments become shitty deals. The balance sheets on all the corpos involved? Collapse with it.
I have my critiques of China, I'm a fucking Anarchist. The fact remains that they are the ally we have and need in this specific fight.
Omg I need to rig my browser to translate Chinese better, because there's Communities with models for ANYTHING. And they're given away freely, as is right and just.
I just wanna nerd out and be able to build cool shit for my comrades, with my comrades.
Chinese tech workers get to build drones for actual disaster relief. Any time I'm about to get a job in that here, in the US? Its a weapons platform and the boss isn't allowed to even say it.
The Chinese "market" for AI is stronger, healthier, more robust, and more useful for things that aren't violence. Meanwhile, the US government has drafted every US corpo-LLM into being digital soldiers that drive weapon drones. I am okay leaving Pwlantir in the garbage can of history.
I hope my sleep deprived rambling adds to the convo.
SaltyPeanutTesticles@futurology.today · -5 pts · 1d
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus · 22 pts · 2d
Its software.
Corporations.
Corporation
... By a corporation.
What this all boils down to as a problem is pretty simple - its capitalism.
Do you have the same seething hatred for computer vision?
What about microphones? Are they the root of all evil? Flock uses them in their cameras, so they should draw the same ire, right?
What about drones? Is their existence the harbinger of doom because they can be used for bombing?
Is the technology to blame? Or the people behind it?
I can't comprehend blaming software (or even hardware) for the problems created by people. AI isn't building pollution generating data centers. AI isn't behind stock market manipulation and rapidly rising hardware prices. AI isn't trying to do anything. It doesn't have intelligence or feelings or anything of the sort.
Its just software. Blame the people causing the problems instead. If it wasn't AI it would just be something else.
emmy5482@quokk.au · 3 pts · 2d
I could agree with this, except for the obvious logical fallacy.
This can be used to justify the development of any and all technology. Including machines purpose built for nothing other than exterminating all life on this planet.
Why? Cause someone has to activate it. Be that a corporation or other person.
You do lightly address that here
And yet, ai couldn't exist without pollution generating data centers.
The reverse of this is also true. You cannot hammer a nail without a hammer.
The best way to describe ai here is handing someone a hammer, but the only thing they can hammer with it, is your own face.
Because it's a tool to influence us more than anything else, it's baked into the design, through ai sycophancy. The old adage "if the product is free, you're the product" is true here. Why give out ai for free for so long?
It is a mass influence tool.
Back to the original point, is a drone, a harbinger of doom? No. But ai isn't the equivalent if a drone. It's a drone carrying a nuke. which is only pointed at us, and we can't point it elsewhere by design.
So yeah, I think that's a problem
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus · 10 pts · 2d
We already have. And that same technology can be used for energy.
Again, its what its used for.
AI has existed since the 50s, but I'll assume you're talking about LLMs.
But that is also a no. You can build with pytorch, completely from scratch.
Thats an absolutely terrible and nonsensical analogy. Sorry, but there is literally no truth in it. I can only assume, based on this comment and the previous I replied to, that you are fundamentally misinformed about LLMs and how they work.
.... Nope. Thats the corporations behind the big models. Again, you're blaming software for how someone is using it.
Again, no.
The whisper model is an LLM. Its compact, and has a very specific purpose - to identify spoken audio, take spoken audio and transcribe, and translate spoken audio.
It doesn't do anything else. It is an LLM.
In what way could you possibly misconstrue its purpose that it was designed for "ai sycophancy"? What are you even talking about here?
This is use, not the technology itself.
This is what I can only describe as a hallucination. This is entirely a fabrication in your head about what an LLM is.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 1d
I do think the transcription that the whisper models can do is impressive.
If you needed to understand what someone is saying, and weren't able to ask them then I agree it makes sense to use.
I think it is a more interesting question when we add a translation into the mix from a different language. Sure, there might be times when you need to understand what's being said in a different language immediately. But if you do have the time and ability to find someone that can translate, or even learn the language yourself. Then that seems like a much better method of building trust, solidarity, and understanding between actual people.
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus · 2 pts · 1d
I speak a little bit of a good number of languages. The few that I'm pretty good at, I can still have trouble discerning especially with some dialects. So personally I find translation helpful still, despite having learned the language.
That said, its one of the few I use that are made by others, usually to transcribe something I recorded on the go. I work from home 95% of the time though, so its pretty rare.
emmy5482@quokk.au · 1 pts · 1d
You fundamentally misunderstand my point.
You cannot hammer without a hammer, it influences because it exists. Not because of anything a hammer does, simply because it is.
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus · 9 pts · 1d
LLMs exist to parse through large datasets, therefore we create large data sets! Like population-level vaccine acceptance, public health behaviors, and evaluating the spread of misinformation about vaccines! (PS: Yes, LLMs play a significant role in healthcare in a good way)
Oh, the horror!
No, I think your point is flawed at a fundamental level. The person who chooses to hammer in a screw rather than use a screwdriver wasn't unduly influenced by the existence of the hammer, or by a lack of awareness of the existence of a screwdriver.
emmy5482@quokk.au · 0 pts · 1d
You cannot choose what you have no knowledge of. So in that aspect at least, you are very wrong.
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus · 5 pts · 1d
Sure thing.
I'll live over here in reality where someone having access to a screw is also going to include (in such overwhelming certainty that the negative can only be described as an exception existing in theoretical consideration only) the knowledge of the existence of a screwdriver.
I'll also note you have zero comment on any of my corrections of your misunderstandings about LLMs, so I'll go ahead and move on now.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
It's because like the majority of anti-AI people, the "misunderstanding" is largely intentional. To get you to debate them. Hoping they can "win" and when they can't win through their arguments because it's all bullshit they just knock over the chess pieces and declare victory. Which is what this liberal chud is doing right now.
emmy5482@quokk.au · 0 pts · 1d
No corrections were necessary as you misunderstood my original point.
But to correct you anyway. Influence on llm models comes not just from instructions prior to entering text (pre prompting). But also from the inclusion, or selective exclusion of training data.
As a person cannot choose what they do not know about, so a LLM cannot respond about what it has not been trained on.
As such influnece exists in both models regardless.
These biases and their ability to influence a person. Due to the inherent sycophancy of ai and the tendency to anthropomorphise which humans have contribute to the phenomenon known as ai psychosis.
Thesetwo factors combine to the "gun pointed at your head that is inherent to LLMs".
Ai also hasn't existed since the 50s. It was theorised, although intelligent machines have existed long before that. An example was the mechanical turk, which was ironically powered by a human.
Anyway. I'm afraid you're wrong on me not being educated on how they work. I know all too much about how they work. I also know how people work, though that always seems to be a blind spot to ai enthusiasts.
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1d
The hammer exists. There are nails to be hammered. Will you destroy your hammer because some asshole also has one?
I don't know if you quite realize how you sound. Chuds exist. Chuds with guns are a problem. This does not mean "we should ban guns" as chuds don't care about bans. Your ban will disarm an honest, marginalized person to be an easier chud target.
Replace guns with AI:
I don't know if you quite realize how you sound. Chuds exist. Chuds with ai are a problem. This does not mean "we should ban ai" as chuds don't care about bans. Your ban will disarm an honest, marginalized person to be an easier chud target.
I stand by both paragraphs.
emmy5482@quokk.au · -1 pts · 1d
I'm actually a supporter of gun control.
Well now, if chuds are the problem, why not ban them? That probably involves prison or some really stringent background checks.
But I'm sure you wouldn't be in favor of those either.
The simplest way is to ban guns and, put massive penalties on breaking those rules.
Honestl, y as far as ai goes. I'm don't think there is any ethical LLM usage.
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1d
You'll get your gun control when the chuds are mad because the trans girls are armed too. Its how this always works in your spineless liberal government. Gun Control in California really amped up from panic about the Black Panthers. It helped get Reagan into Office, after all.
Which I'm sure is totally okay by you, and you have no need to deconstruct. đ
Do you use spellcheck? Do you use speech to text? Congrats, you're using an LLM, without knowing-consent. Any of your newsfeeds including most social media (except here and a few other holdouts)...
I don't envy you. The spaces you know and love are being fed to this... Piece of garbage tech that requires DEEP literacy to touch safely. And there's nothing any of us can do about it, because capitalism says "stonk holders" are who matters, not stake holders.
And you have nothing to come back with except, "them's the brakes." Your government will let you march in a circle where nobody has to see you or hear you if they don't want. And you'll still be logged by every Flock Camera along the way, flagged in a Palantir database as a potential "problem", and soon, that can integrate with how your Facebook feed changes!
I would rather die than live there with you. Fortunately, I have another option. I'm mad I can't bring you with me, but that wasn't up to me. It was up to you.
Ima be over here generating ai-tracking-adversarial images for t-shirts, breaking applicant tracking systems with optimization, and poisoning deviantart images so the artist can post THAT and the image hurts any model trained on them.
When you're ready to respect how cyberpunk dystopian we already are instead of pretending you can vote it away, you can join us in the good fight.
emmy5482@quokk.au · 0 pts · 23h
I don't live in America. I live in a country that does have more sensible gun control laws. I'm sorry you can't imagine a system that is better than where you live.
The country in which I live had a conservative government which proposed these gun control laws and they have, by and large worked.
I'm sorry you can't imagine a world where there is a milder form of government in which the political extreme has lived in the fringes. To give you an idea, in the US, I'd already be considered a terrorist. In my country, I'm just a citizen.
I do not use spell check or speech to text. Spellcheck and speech to text technology massively predates the use of LLMs and LibreOffice does not incorporate spellcheck by default.
In any case, I don't believe it to be necessary to use ai to poison ai. Iocaine and other poisoning algorithms are already able to do so without it.
Meshcore exists to get me around flock cameras, but flock isn't here in this country.
Mutual aid is the way forward, rather than adopting the tools designed to suppress you.
AVincentInSpace@pawb.social · -1 pts · 1d
Alright then. Do that and only use it for coding assistance and what have you from now on. You've got no reason to use Claude anymore.
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus · 2 pts · 1d
I don't use LLMs for code.
Though I have (and will continue to) build specialized models.
I have also never used Claude or any other corporate LLM. You may want to read my other comments in this very thread before making snarky replies.
Edit: Unless you count copilot being forced on me in meetings, along with the other miscellaneous transcription services. I swear I don't have any meetings without it, its ridiculous.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 1d
Right, but Meta's foundational llm is what most "open" LLMs are based on.
If you are running an open model today, you are most likely using this data set.
And it's not that they used annas or pirated media, I don't care about copyright, I use annas all the time. This thing that I think is important is that the wroks were used in such a way that you can not cite it, you can not attribute where an idea came from. I do know there is some interesting research in this area but at the moment we can't ask an llm when if is using the ideas of others or where exactly those ideas came from.
You can be iterating on top of something an llm wrote not realizing that the book you are writing is just some summary of something else.
You can ignore that, but it should atleast be recognized.
I don't actually have a "seething hatred" for genAI. I just think it is the antithesis of what I am trying to accomplish, wich is freedom.
Atleast, I think that is true for the current iteration of genAI. I'm open to change however.
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus · 4 pts · 1d
I don't think thats true, I think qwen (alibaba) or mistral would take that seat. Not that I think alibaba is some paragon of openness or something, just that I don't think its Meta.
Again though, that has nothing to do with the technology itself.
ChatGPT popularized the assistant model, does that mean any assistant ever would somehow be tainted by the existence of chatgpt? Even for something built ground-up?
That seems to me like blaming technology for the problems of corporations.
Thats the problem I have with the "hard anti-ai" folks. The blame is in the wrong spot. AI is just the current vehicle for what I can only consider malice to the general population, not the cause.
Be anti-datacenter. Protest against construction, speak out at town meetings, take direct action - all valid, appropriate, and fully has my support. We don't have anything close to anarchism right now, and as ive said in other places many times before - take all avenues (mentioned in the context of voting and similar things, but its a universal thought).
To me that is in no way "fighting AI". Its fighting against the corporation-sponsored destruction of our communities, local habitats, and the environment.
I just think the blame should be in the right place - capitalism.
Where that only gets complex is where a single response is formed from 5 or 7 or 20 different sources.
That said, its important to point out that not all llm's are about generating text, images, or video. I think that also gets lost on a lot of folks.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 1d
Definitely a lot of capitalist fuckery, can't argue there.
SaltyPeanutTesticles@futurology.today · -1 pts · 1d
A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 20 pts · 1d
Open source AI reduces demand for corporate AI
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 1d
Especially since it's free. They can't charge you for it, they can't ban you from it as blackmail. It is 100% yours for simply the cost of running it. Which with a battery and solar system is totally doable. If you can run a Gaming PC on a solar setup you can run AI models on one as well.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 6 pts · 1d
I think the nature of genAI inherently isolates people from one another.
Like the nature of a weapon is to kill.
I can see usecases, but I do think there are risks that are much more than it being corporate.
Although, I have to say, I'm starting to see my controdictions in thought.
If I continue the gun analogy, it's possible to use a weapon as a tool to your benifit if you allow yourself to understand the danger involved.
I only in the past couple of years opened my mind to firearms. This might be a similar situation for me.
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 1d
That's just a random thought, not something substantiated by any evidence presented.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · -4 pts · 1d
I don't have data or scientific journals to cite. Although I think they might exist.
This opinion comes from my experience, the experiences I've seen my friends have, and my logical reasoning.
Do you have any statements as to why this might not be true?
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
Its not up to me to justify your claim or otherwise. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · -3 pts · 18h
As I stated, it's an opinion. I'm interested in yours.
I should have said that instead of the word statement, but i was in a rush. You don't owe me data, or anything. I just thought you were interested in sharing your views.
I'm honestly, becoming more open to genAI use. But I still do think there are risks and I think we should consider if those risks are plausible and could be solved for somehow.
Similar to how proper firearm handling can prevent shooting yourself.
rako@tarte.nuage-libre.fr · -1 pts · 1d
A good Master reduces demand for less beating on the plantation
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
Never, not once on Lemmy, have I convinced a flat anti-AI user to have any nuance regarding local genAI.
And not from a lack of trying. Not even shooting down every ethical or technical issue.
I hate to sound so cynical, but I think the topic is just too polarizing. Which is understandable, given how awful mass/corporate AI is. Its not something debating or presentation is going to break through.
A ton of Fediverse users are going to be unconditionally anti-GenAI. A few will like their self hosting or dev helpers.
The is fine.
Real AI Bros won't use the Fediverse anyway, so we don't have to worry about them, but I think other AI political sects will just have to learn to coexist.
Even within instances, IMO. I dont want to misspeak for another instance, but it seems like db0 can house the spectrum.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1d
That's not really surprising to me since these people resorted to literal harassment campaigns when I began banning them from communities I mod simply because I didn't want to just sit and watch them suppress my community's reach.
They're not the kind of people that will listen to reason or logic. They are the kind of people who have strong opinions and who want their opinions to be facts. I wrote a nice write up on it and people harassed me for it but it essentially called out that they will use facts when not applicable, make shit up, or resort to ad-hominems and ableism to uphold their own opinions as fact.
If it was as simple as having differing opinions and agreeing to disagree. Or even not, just having differing opinions I would agree with that. I couldn't care less what their opinions are. What I do care about is attacks on me and my communities. Straight up harassment, some of which happened earlier today. That's never going to be okay.
PapaSkwat@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 1d
Totally agree with you. I actually have Lemmings that follow me around to downvote every single comment I make and talk shit any chance they can, just because I dare to use AI. That's how lame they are and how polarizing the subject is. No amount of talking to them helps. The extremists on here are so fixed in wilding zone, that they just don't want to stop until they see actual blood.
Even though like someone else said a few comments up, "Open source AI reduces demand for corporate AI," the haters just don't want to hear it.
In this very thread there was a guy saying we are fascists because we use AI and that we should die. Another guy said, "Fuck AI. The tool of the tech fascists has no place in freedom from tyranny." When someone is like that, there is no reasoning. He got banned for is comments, but his account was only 17 minutes old when he made those comments. So he's probably waiting to use a new username right now. lol
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
It's funny that they say we're fascist for using open-source AI models, yet they have no issue with transphobic harassment, rape threats, and doxxing when the person in question uses AI. Tactics straight out of the fascist playbook. It's hypocritical.
CobraCommander@quokk.au · 10 pts · 1d
AI is a tool, it can be used without contributing to corporate profits via local models.
I would rather people have the opportunity to use said tool, than to hand it fully over to the ruling class who are already wielding it against us.
There are issues with corporate usage and the environmental damages of all these datacentres popping up all over the globe. That is not an issue with AI itself, but with capitalism and authoritarianism.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 1d
That's a fair point. But some tools are inherently dangerous. I think it is good to understand risks.
drkt@scribe.disroot.org · 8 pts · 2d
It's a neural network man it's just a computer.
Don't take this as a slight because I know I type like I'm mad when I'm being serious but this conversation immediately derailed itself by not understanding what "AI" is. It's just a neural network- we've had them forever. OpenAI and Google and probably a handful of others found out how to efficiently process a massive neural network through decades of research and now we have LLMs. There is nothing wrong with LLMs. There is plenty wrong with what corporations are doing with it. Corporations are burning the planet to chase this new gold rush they've invented. The individuals who are also using the technology are not burning the planet by using it. It literally does not burn any more or less of the rainforests if I run or train local models. The alternative is I play videogames that also require beefy graphics cards.
The problem is not the computer, it is the incentive structure around the computer that rewards corporations for fucking the planet. You can have AI in an anarchist utopia, but it would be doing actual work, accelerating medical research, instead of answering search engine queries and making non-consentual deep-fake porn.
As long as this incentive structure stays, corporations fuck the planet. LLMs was just one of a never-ending series of gold-rushes that will continue to happen as long as they have permission to molest society.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 1d
It's just atoms man, just the entropy of the universe.
Comrade_Spood@quokk.au · 7 pts · 1d
punkisundead@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 1d
What do people actually use their local (FOSS) models for? That would be interesting to me because I generally dont visit AI communities and so dont see how other anarchists put these tools to practice.
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 1d
Coding assistants and porn are the most common uses.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 1d
I don't have one but if I did I would use it to generate images. Maybe also connect to the AI horde so other people who can't afford their own can get the benefits when I'm not using it.
Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 13h
Mostly translation. Specifically:
Outside of translation, when I'm trying to figure out where to buy something obscure that I don't know the name of and can't find it after repeated searching, asking a local LLM sometimes gives me the name of a vendor or two whose web site leads me to the right search term.
Similarly (and ironically), when I'm looking for information in how to do something oddly specific but can't find information online due to the proliferation of vaguely related AI slop pages on closely related topics, sometimes throwing the question at the LLM leads me to the right phrase to search and find what I'm looking for.
Critically, I never trust the answer from the next-word-prediction-machine (which is essentially what an LLM is) gives me. All my current uses for it revolve around its original purpose - finding the right words.
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 1d
"AI" is a tool of the Epstein class. It's inherently hierarchical and anti worker. Antithical to anarchist movements.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 1d
Can you explain to me how stable diffusion models running on our own server with anti-NSFW and anti-CSAM filters is an inherent tool of the Epstein class? Is it that you think all people who use AI are pedophiles? Is it that you equate using other people's intellectual property with sexually abusing children? Or are you just throwing words to try to insult people who use AI, which is, FYI. Fash-jacketing.
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
With A charitable interpretation I think that comment was just an off-hand insult to the rich and a way to make people think who they're "supporting". It was not meant to label users of genai as Pedos.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
I hope not but you never can tell with them.
njm1314@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1d
What a bizarre way to take that comment. Who doesn't know that "Epstein class" refers to the billionaire class? Your comment is so wildly defensive I'm left super confused.
A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1d
When we get to power, how are we gonna compete with nation states who do use AI?
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1d
I'm sure that a lot of the Fuck_AI people have this fantasy that we'll do it with pencil and paper or something absurd like that. It's funny because a lot of the anti-AI people are hypocrites and use AI themselves when it suits them. Specifically corporate AI models because unlike us they couldn't care less, it's all just AI to them. They used them in the harassment against me to generate offensive derivatives of my avatar in order to attack me, although I've also seen them use it to generate written arguments to help them with debate and sealioning. Which is mildly amusing.
A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1d
I just hope it happens before the capitalists waste the natural resources necessary for living a comfortable life
CubitOom@infosec.pub · -1 pts · 1d
Out maneuvering your enemy is a proven tactic. So is being unpredictable and having something fight for.
These are some ways genAI could possibly hurt our objectives. Although, I guess there might be workarounds.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1d
Do you think calculators are a tool of the Epstein class? What about cars? What about books? What about televisions? What about power tools? What about algorithms? What about statistical analysis?
All of those things can be used for hierarchical and anti-worker actions. But I fail to see how those, or AI, are "inherently" hierarchical and anti-worker.
BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 1d
I don't agree with the original wording of the person you replied to, but i can do my best to explain still.
Firstly, the obvious meaning for the term "AI" here is LLM's, this makes the following points clear:
Why is this technology inherently anti-worker and hierarchical?
Anarchism, in all its forms (or at least all that i can think of on the spot), rely mainly on community, inter-personal relationships, and the union of means and ends, LLM's form an incentive to not make connections with other people, to not rely on other people's expertise, and sometimes to even doubt your own.
I'm not even giving this justice as these tools are trained to speak like a person, this has psychological implications, I'm sure you've heard the term "AI psychosis" before, this term may be medically dubious, but it does point at a real concern, this technology already isolates people, the vulnerable of us, and undermines expertise and community.
The way these models are trained, requires consuming (again, absurd) amounts of data, that can only be aquired via exploitation, alienation of labor from worker (as in no work gets properly credited, and that the LLM's are used and marketed as a replacement for actual sources of knowledge and expertise), and destruction of knowledge, as when you replace a source of knowledge, the people maintaining it may choose to stop doing so (via perceived obsolescence).
If we actually want to reduce the demand for corporate LLM's, the answer is not FOSS LLM's, as much as i love FOSS software, this technology only really drives us apart, we need to do it the tried and true method: building community, mutual aid, mutual responsibility, we need to perserve sources of knowledge and expertise, we need to keep expertise valuable, and we need trust, this requires community.
Apology for the length of this, in short: The demand for AI is a spook, go do community work.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
Correct, although why you would want to use an LLM for in-place calculations is beyond me. That's the wrong tool for the job. I also think using hammers on screws is a bad idea, but I don't see how that makes hammers "a tool of the Epstein class"
Sure, but that's a capitalism problem, not an AI problem. Thats about artificial scarcity, not statistical probability calculations.
Uh wut? There are absolutely bugs. I don't know of anyone who has ever said that LLMs don't have bugs.
No, actually I don't. Please explain further
I could say the same thing about calculators, or waterwheels, or books. Do you think those things are "inherently hierarchical and anti-worker" ?
Yeah, a powerful tool used for evil goals is going to have an evil outcome. AI psychosis is not inherently a part of LLMs. That's how they are specifically built in order to make people use them more. Once again, this is a problem with capitalism.
That's not true at all. Many of them are trained on data that has been made freely available by the creator of the data.
So, like books, and online videos, and comics, and articles, and blogs, etc? So do you think those are also "inherently hierarchical and anti-worker" ?
Again, wut? Do you think books are a destruction of knowledge because they replace scrolls, or direct conversations from the writer? I feel like I really don't understand what you mean here.
BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 1d
Going from "this isn't comparable to a calculator/algorithm/book" to "therefore it is a tool of the Epstein class" wasn't part of my original comment, LLM's are a tool of the bourgeois because they destroy community building, and isolate people, which directly hinders building actual power.
And while you don't see why LLM's would be used in calculations, a lot of newer students in universities think they have a good reason to, i have to deal with that as a fellow student, i want you to think about the consequences of this technology: I can't really work on a problem with anyone else, if i need someone to justify a step in a formal proof, they most likely will go "gemini this, gpt that, actually i have a local model yada yada" and i really wish the local model people weren't the most annoying of the bunch, but it's probably bias on my part since people around me know my stance on FOSS, in another era, maybe i would have gotten "this theorem appears in this and that book/lecture/presentation/website", but as of now i don't get this luxury.
This is a prime example of what this technology does right now, to people who should "know better", as in studying computer science or software engineering, and a close friend tells me the same is in maths, and yes even the people studying about LLM's, so safe to say even if people knew how these work, they would "misuse" them, so not really a capitalism specific problem.
Books being destroyed is not a capitalism problem, it's a power problem, and it wouldn't disappear in an anarchist society, companies who develop LLM's want control and power, not specifically money, and they know they can get that by stealing information from the public (stealing from the commons, not as in intellect property), and making the public dependant on an alternative they control, in capitalism this means money, but only because money is power, natural consequence of this is destruction of books.
About bugs, LLM's don't have a well defined problem they solve, so you can't say "this test failed, therefore i can reverse engineer how it fails and point at a wrong instruction", you also can't say that because the math may be correct all throughout the calculation, with LLM's you don't get an incorrect answer, you get an answer you don't like, which means you need to train (or re-train) a model to get "better" parameter weights, by "better" i mean perceived to be better because you can't really comprehend the amount of weights themselves and their purpose, meaning again you can't just pick one and change its value and also know the consequences of it. So no, whatever this output you don't like is, it's not a bug, also note how i didn't have to even mentioned reproducibility in all this.
I won't elaborate on why an LLM is different to a car or power tool, because my previous explanation applies to hardware problems as well, and what i said about having a well defined problem and solution also applies, and while i really am trying to be serious and explain, i feel like you really don't by asking me to explain something trivial, i assume you didn't mean for me to take it this way and i take no offense, but i thought you should be aware of how this looks.
Take my personal experience as an example, assume i need to make some heavy calculations for a group assignment or whatever, if someone doesn't understand how i reached a specific value, i can show steps, and show i did the calculation on a calculator, if i did do something incorrect, contrast with the use of LLM's in which you are likely to get LLM output copy pasted as "reasoning", meaning you can't trust what your partner says and have to verify everything from first principals because no one is going to make the job shorter. In an actual workplace, this pits workers against each other, easy to see why, it takes no effort to make garbage for someone else to verify, obviously this will result in alienation from other workers, more than someone like me feels alienation from fellow students.
The same applies to books, articles and blogs, let's take another example from the field of software since it is what I'm familiar with: one of the main ways i improve my craft is with books, articles, blogs and videos of conferences which document how real, hard problems were solved, each of these points me at a person who labored at writing the article/blog/presentation, the people involved in the teams, the people who are inspiration to those people and so on. LLM's just don't do that, they can't* give a source, they take the problems and the solutions out of their context, which makes reasoning harder, they can't point you at "extra reading".
Also to your point about scrolls, the alternative to scrolls is something that contains the same information, just stored in a different manner, which reminds me, i don't remember when was the last time i listened to music from a CD, they, and scrolls, are, once again, not comparable to LLM's.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
All of your responses here are either wrong, or keep side-stepping my points: Yes, LLMs can give sources, and often do. Yes, people do shitty things with LLMs, but how is that inherent to the LLM? Yes, LLMs don't have a well-defined problem, and can't do direct calculations, that's not what they are for.
I still fail to see how any of that makes LLM's inherently bad. The things you blame LLM's for are social problems, or capitalism problems, or something similar. I don't see you blaming other tools for the problems they create when they are mis-used.
BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net · -1 pts · 22h
If LLM's don't have a well-defined problem to solve, how does one misuse it, if they are not for "direct calculations" you keep talking about, what are LLM's for?
Also there is a point to make that if a tool is mostly "misused" then it is a bad tool, though I'm not sure it applies since you first need to define misuse.
I've given you a few problems that aren't capitalism specific, I'm not going to recount them, if i was more rude I'd suggest getting an LLM to fetch a few bullet points, but it's more healthy to just take a few more minutes to re-read what i just took time out of my day for you all to read.
And the reason you don't see me blaming other tools is just because this was your only interaction with me, I'm learning software engineering, because i like the subject, and in software almost all we do is complain about tools, the documentation for said tools, the setup required to use a tool and the like, critiquing work is part of what makes an engineer, that's how we get better, usually though, i don't need to argue that something is not even a tool.
The neat part of a screwdriver is that i can say: "this is a screwdriver, it drives screws", and mean it, because there are implications if it doesn't, like where it will probably be broken, and what needs fixing.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 22h
They are for statistical analysis and probabilistic modeling. They give general responses, based on statistical inference.
It's always amazing to me when people accuse me of doing what they themselves are doing. I read what you wrote, but you aparently didn't read what I wrote. I never claimed that you only gave capitalism specific problems. I'm not even sure where you got that from.
I don't understand what you mean by this. I explicitly pointed out tools: scrolls, waterwheels, hammers, etc as examples of tools that can be misused to be anti-worker, and hierarchical, but aren't inherently so. Are you saying that you do think that they are "inherently anti-worker and hierarchical" ?
Please explain it to me, because I don't see how that can be true.
BrickEater@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
FUCK GEN AI. All of you here excusing it or saying "oh its not AI its the corporations can suck my left nut. I may not be a .dbzero user but I am an anarchist and I stand firmly against all forms of AI. The only ethical use is for data sets pertaining to medical and research models that are locally run.
AI is a control tool and if you self host, IMO it reads to me like you want an info slave.
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 1d
The internet is also a control tool, better get off now - WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 1d
I'm guessing they're a troll. Or maybe they do think that we support the structures of capitalism. They seem to think that anarchism is about supporting the idea of copyright and capitalist ideals of working for someone else. At least that's what I've gotten from their interactions.
Aqivex@fedinsfw.app · 3 pts · 1d
Alright, clear opening, I think I can follow this comment.
Uninterested in technical detail, and blaming corporations, with a request for left nut oral for any holding any views thereof, ok, still following your stance, very clear.
Sweet, the thesis statement.
Wait, what?
But we can't talk about the technology that allows that, or it's the left nut for us?
So... non-corporate use is okay?
Well, yeah, I mean, we can call it an info daemon or something cooler, but yeah, for the control of the medical and the research datasets, yeah?
I'm very confused. Do I help you suck your own left nut or do I nuzzle the right one, comrade?
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
Real brave stance against something that doesn't exist. That's how the anti-"AI" movement feeds the "AI" grift. But it doesn't have to be this way.
SaltyPeanutTesticles@futurology.today · -3 pts · 1d
There is no ethical use of AI! Fuck these stupid fascist pieces of shit!
Juice@midwest.social · 4 pts · 1d
poolcritter@pawb.social · 3 pts · 1d
Juice@midwest.social · 2 pts · 1d
poolcritter@pawb.social · 2 pts · 1d
Juice@midwest.social · 2 pts · 1d
poolcritter@pawb.social · 1 pts · 1d
CubitOom@infosec.pub · -1 pts · 1d
It does
poolcritter@pawb.social · 3 pts · 1d
Interesting, maybe I just don't see it.
edit: what's with the purge?
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
This whole comment chain is way off topic.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · -2 pts · 1d
Actually were are discussing using genAI content in a post about using genAI content.
I think the comments have been civil. I don't see the reason to remove them personally.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · -2 pts · 1d
You didn't see it because it wasn't edited. (I'm pretty sure atleast I've honestly been pretty busy so I forget if I corrected a typo)
The source to the image was definitely originally there.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · -1 pts · 1d
I assure, you it was.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 0 pts · 1d
Juice@midwest.social · 1 pts · 1d
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 2d
I do think there might be something positive to be said about genAI when it comes to semantic seach.
If genAI is a tool to use, I see it more as a weapon that needs a set of operating procedures to use safely. Similar to my gun or car.
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · 0 pts · 1d
Its not being used to augment search. It's being used to replace search.
Every defense of this shit reads like going back to 1989 and publishing an op-ed about how MRNA vaccines and crisper are gonna be so cool, so stop whining about AIDS you damn vaccine hating bigots.
Edit: not to imply anything that good is going to come out of this. The math says it won't.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
Uh, what math? There are already good things coming out of it, so I'm not sure how math can show that.
PapaSkwat@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 1d
Well this thread turned into a shitshow real fast. @CubitOom@infosec.pub are you seeing these comments before they get perma banned?
With these unhinged guys running around, you think I'm the bad guy on Lemmy? lolol What the actual hell... the dude is acting criminally insane in these comments! This person just said they wants us all to die. This is stuff we put up with every day. But I'm a fascist?!
I actually skew toward anarchism, but I'm not really very political. Which may be the reason that I don't feel local AI goes against the spirit of it.
R-word slur blurred out by me because I can't stand the sight of the word:
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 1d
I might have missed most of it, was busy today.
Remember, I thought you were a fascist for banning me when I said anti-fascist things. But maybe it was just bad luck or a misunderstanding?
I'm going to remove that tag I put on you. I might have jumped the gun. We will see.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
False. It's literally just a computer program.
No computer program will ever understand this, nor should we expect that.
"AI" is not doing this. It's being done by capitalists (spacex, anthropic). Stop letting them off the hook.
How does using a computer program do this?
How does using a computer program do this?
Computers have no more "morality" than a calculator.
This is just your (self-serving) opinion. Many people might find a computer generated summary to be helpful, etc. People have been using Cliff's notes for decades. The value of usage is in the eye of the user.
*
TBH this is just feeding the grift with more pseudo-scientific, anthropomorphic nonsense. There is no "AI". We need to fight against problems that actually exist (eg. capitalism, surveillance, genocide, etc).
JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net · -3 pts · 1d
I can answer one of the questions.
Maybe not in the way OP is thinking, but it does massively help control us and here is how:
Fascism always had one huge flaw that prevented it from ever fully working: data. 1920s Germany was quite efficient at this, but they still had literally thousands of people listening, spying, reporting on, and processing data into threats that the SS would deal with.
That is simply too much data for humans to sift through and not miss a fuck ton of things, leading to resistance movements gaining a lot of ground.
AI solves this problem in that a few data centers can process spying data (and much more of it from the surveillance devices almost every person has in their house right now) fairly close to real time. That is a game changer. That is why the technofascists are pushing AI so hard to speed up development. It is essentially the best large scale pattern recognizer in the world and the manpower it takes to run that system is extremely small. That is why palantir is getting its claws in everywhere. Governments want that, whether for good or evil.
AI is a game changer for authoritarians. Or course, they would have to use it well still to be effective, but for example Palantir is building AI-only kill chains where targets are identified based on large data ingest, located, and then drones can be sent to kill them. That can happen in minutes or hours instead of the weeks or months it would traditionally take and resistance leadership is a finite resource.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 22h
This applies to cameras as well. Cameras help fascists, fascists help target victims, cameras help track people, cameras help report where people are and what they are doing. Cameras make us easier to control.
Do you think all cameras are bad? or are they just a tool that is being mis-used by the fascists?
JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 16h
Who needs to process the camera data? Again, it is a very different technology from all of the comparisons because it is literally taking out the need for large bodies of human oversight. Data collection vs data processing.
A camera does not decide who lives and who dies. An LLM can (and has) decided who lives and who dies and can carry out the execution orders itself.
But I guess cameras aren't starving people of water and power and a required prerequisite to their use at scale.
But you're right. LLMs aren't evil at all, they are just a tool. The next defining tool that fascists now need to subjugate everyone and eliminate resistance.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 14h
I could say the same thing about spreadsheets. Is spreadsheet software, or databases bad?
That's a choice that is being made. That's not the point of LLMs, it's one of the many things that LLMs are being used for.
The same is also true of LLMs. Capitalism is doing that. We can make LLMs much more efficiently, but we choose not to, due to capitalism.
I'm against their use by facists, just like I'm against facists using cars, or bulldozers, or guns, or wheat. I just don't see how LLMs are any different.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 14h
They're only different because these people very strongly personally dislike them and they aren't content with it just being their opinion. Which is why they make up some of the most pathetic bad faith arguments you'll ever hear.
You know what else is a fascist tool by their logic? Internet, Television, Computers, Cars, Trains... Pretty much all technology in the hands of fascists will benefit fascists.
That's why we need to fight fascists instead of doing this stupid culture war bullshit. I wonder if some of these anti-AI people are intentionally trying to distract from that. After all like most liberals they intentionally or unintentionally support fascist agendas.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 14h
I think people are upset by the legitimate problems that they see, but I think they typically mis-diagnose the cause of the problems.
People are scared to lose their jobs, and their livelihood, for good reason. Capitalism sucks, and it ties the two together.
I'm pro automation, because I want people to lose their jobs. What I don't want is for them to lose their livelihood. I think people working on jobs that they don't like just to pay the bills is dumb, but people working on jobs that they enjoy is awesome.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 14h
Probably is that for most people, amplified due to the culture war. I don't think that excuse works for the people claiming to be anarchist and anti-copyright though. A lot of people in this thread seem to be doing it maliciously not out of ignorance.
Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 1d
LLMs are fundamentally fascist tech that serve to poison the information ecosystem and erode people's capacity for critical thought.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 1d
How are they fundamentally fascist? They don't exist for those purposes, but they can be used for those purposes.
That's like saying "hammers exist to beat people's heads in". Yes, they can do that, but that's not what they are meant for.
NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net · -2 pts · 1d
A corporation known for supporting apartheid creates a product. The product doesn't loudly proclaim its support, paying for the product puts money into the corporation's pockets.
That's like the argument that "guns don't kill people" - what the fuck else are they for?
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 1d
If LLMs were only made by apartheid supporing corporations, you might have a point. But many different people and groups create LLM's for all kinds of things: Statistical analysis, generating stories and characters, coding assistance, design assistance, process assistance, language translation, rubber ducking, debate assistance, running D&D games and many more.
NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net · -1 pts · 16h
So other than statistical analysis, which doesn't use LLMs but instead uses machine learning algorithms, (which I have no issue with) those all are creative endeavours and are trained on data that was once created by a human being, things which could easily be done by a human, taking away from actual people and putting the benefit of that work into the hands of corporations, the anarchist nature of which I am a bit lost on.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 14h
Letters can be delivered by a human. Do you think we should only send letters, intead of sending texts? What about cars, and trains? They take jobs away from people, should we abandon those? What about copiers, or printers? What about power tools? or water pumps?
Those things all help corporations, and non-corporations too. I don't see how LLM's are any different. Should we abandon all automation to keep people employed?
NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net · -2 pts · 13h
Nice strawman, but no.
Texts allow for immediate communication, letters still allow for a more impactful message, be it emotional or financial in the ay of a birthday card or a bill. Cars and trains allow people to travel further with more lugage than walking, both of which provide more avenue for jobs to be efficient, printers require maintenance and a qualified operator (in the case of large format printing for publications and magazines etc) and power tools are quicker but can be useless in comparison to a human being putting their bodyweight into tightening/loosening mechanical parts. All of these HELP people to do work better or provide avenues for skilled workers to do their job better.
Language models GUESS what word they should say next and fake being smart, while wasting electricity and time by making a human into a glorified spellchecker, because any technical work they're put to is delayed by adding an extra layer where a professional with the experience and expertise needs to check every output for accuracy.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 4h
But they are also "...things which could easily be done by a human, taking away from actual people and putting the benefit of that work into the hands of corporations".
They fit your criteria perfectly.
Tell me you don't know how LLMs work, without telling me that you don't know how LLMs work. Guessing is a very powerful tool, and the smartest people I know spend a lot of their time "guessing".
Video games "waste" electricity. Cars "waste" electricity. Spreadsheets "waste" electricity. Grow-lights "waste" electricity. I don't see how LLMs are all that different.
I have to check the output my co-workers do. Does that make me a "glorified spellchecker" ?
I get that you don't like LLMs, but if you want to convince me of anything, you'll either have to make your values consistent, or come up with something that LLMs damage that is unique to LLMs, and inherently part of their function.
SaltyPeanutTesticles@futurology.today · 2 pts · 1d
agent_nycto@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
alapakala@quokk.au · 1 pts · 20h
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 13h
Surprised you didn't get banned without repeal for daring to say anything against AI
That's what they do for most people who dare to
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 13h
Very funny to post this in a post where vigorous debate on this subject is clearly visible.
We do ban extremely toxic people who can't help themselves from reacting with outright bigotry and attempted bullying, but liars like you like to misrepresent that as us banning all dissent. It it is funny that you decided to post this in the face of all evidence.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -1 pts · 13h
There's still time
whalebiologist@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 3h
yall need to study some haiku or something, brevity is more necessary than ever
TheMinister@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 56m
Is this a comment on the length of a relatively short post in an anarchist community?
I take it youâre not big on reading theory, huh?
PapaSkwat@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 1d
For me, I can be against mass scraping, corporate control, bullshit surveillance, or using AI as a replacement for real human interactions without being against generative AI itself.
If someone runs a local model, trains it on public domain or willingly provided data, and keeps control of it themselves, I don't think it conflicts with anarchism all. The bigger issue seems to be who owns the technology, where the data came from, and what it's being used for. All issues that can be solved by running your own local AI model.
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · -3 pts · 1d
I think the nature of the model privileges past and precedent, and I think the prevalence is part of a fascist push to manipulate a lot of glaring vulnerabilities in human cognition. Most critically our pack bonding and precedence bias, and to a lesser extent laziness, all of which most people have no defense. It is a weapon to kill imagination and truth.
I don't care if your bhuddist; that's still a swastika, and it's painted on the side of a German tank.
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 1d
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · 0 pts · 1d
That was really really long and all the parts I read seemed like slop. I'm going to assume good faith here and that you just used tts transcription on this comment.
Which is part of the problem. The oligarchs jam it into everything and it's PR push floods the zone with shit, so if it were genuinely efficient for something I wouldn't know. I'm guessing that's not all you use it for, because when you've got a hammer laying around and a pile of intractable problems, some of them are gonna get hit with a hammer, even if you had a very real task for which a hammer is the perfect tool.
And talking or searching with this shit damages your brain. It takes you out of humanity. The defenses against that are sophisticated and require a high degree of humanities and math education most people don't have.
I remember tts features on phones at least as far back as 2015. This shit is not required. That's like painting a swastika on your crutches and saying any objection is ableist. I know you can't see that, and I never used tts so I can't say how well it worked, but the memory holing and slopification of your writing style are real impacts. Maybe the trade-off is worth it, one of those fucked up sad decisions we make around disability, but that's not how its presented and not why it's in the conversation.
As a white woman whose body others have tried to use to justify all manner of racism, bigotry, and censorship: please don't fall for that crap. Be your own person, not their tool.
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 1d
I am neurodivergent. I also have an invisible physical disability. Nerve damage doesn't exactly show to a casual glance.
I'm sorry that you have lost the capability to do empathy over the internet.
Yeah, that's not me. I'm anti-cloud. I'm an explicitly anti-civ AI-bro that already codes and tries to do art. But I suspect you're going to call any nuanced discussion "unintelligible slop", so I don't care to have that discourse with you.
I dont fit in either camp with the Disney vs OpenAI lawsuits. I'm glad you are clear in your allegiance to the Disney position. I just need you to accept your Disney-adulthood.
Can I get a source? A discussion of methods for any study? Because repeating a headline is not Literacy, and does not lead to truth.
I have nerve damage in my arms. I tried to be gentle, but that doesn't land. Fuck you for telling me what is and is not "required".
I am MAKING it part of this conversation. And if you cannot accept that, I see it as a reason to block your Disney-gaslit ass and move on.
I typed this by hand. Just for you. Now I gotta go rest for an hour with icepacks. In that time, I'd like to see something much easier to distinguish from a Trumpfan's take on Trans Rights.
PapaSkwat@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 1d
I don't wanna get off-topic, but I just wanted to say I feel for you. I did hard labor for many years, and I'm always worried this may happen to me. Everytime one of my fingers goes randomly numb, I freak out. Sorry you're going through this, but thanks for being so open and honest about it.
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1d
Thank you.
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · -2 pts · 1d
You're taking a lot of liberties with what I said and putting a lot of words in my mouth.
To clarify on the one ambiguity I might attribute to a failure of my writing rather than a failure of your chat bot's hallucination-heavy summary:
Not required for the assistive technology to function, not that the assistive technology was not required. I don't think you're capable of actual discourse and I think I'm done trying to coddle violent illiterate little fascists.
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 1d
I see... So that speech to text back in 2016... You think that wasn't and LLM. Just because it was 2016?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Thanks? I needed a laugh.
I'm sorry you think its a different technology just because you didn't understand what it is.
SaltyPeanutTesticles@futurology.today · -4 pts · 1d
SaltyPeanutTesticles@futurology.today · -2 pts · 1d
Abyssian@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2d
Definitely entertaining to see anarchists griping over policy disagreements.
SwooshBakery624@programming.dev · -1 pts · 1d
dbzer0's general tolerance for genAI is the main reason I will never create an account on that instance. This is ridiculous. These people rant about the environment, ethics, genocide, and Big Tech, and then happily devour AI slop.
EDIT: For those of you who are ready to comment about "wonderful" local LLMs, see this.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 1d
You lost me at stolen training data. You seem like yet another liberal for copyright. That is the primary thesis of your argument. Which is pathetic. I hope you are aware that most of us consider unlicensed usage of training material a feature not a bug. This is home of !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com don't act so surprised we aren't morally outraged like you are that someone pirated images or books to use in training data. Many of us would freely do it ourselves. Some of us do do it ourselves.
It's probably a good thing you didn't make an account here. Liberalism isn't tolerated well.
SwooshBakery624@programming.dev · -2 pts · 1d
How can one of the points from the link I provided to the general list of LLM issues be my main argument? Do you think I'm the one who compiled that list?
And to label me a liberal based on that sole baseless conclusion is absolutely ridiculous. I hate copyright and support piracy just as much as next person.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1d
Somehow I'm not convinced because the only ones really relevant to local AIs are the copyright ones, and the other shit is about the AIs hosted and trained by the big tech companies like Anthropic and OpenAI. Like the majority of the shit in here is shit the AI companies are doing and you cite it as a reason why people on dbzer0 using their own home grown or even home built models are bad people?
Don't tell me you aren't trying to do that. You called out Local LLM users in your edit:
poVoq@slrpnk.net · -1 pts · 1d
No, it is about lack of consent. The open models are all trained through non-consential heavy web scraping, killing off smaller web servers by the thousands and driving server admins to despair by their use of (ususally non-consential) residential proxy bot networks.
The total lack of respect of any consential boundaries is the real problem. It is a pure strawman to claim that this is about copyright.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 1d
There are plenty of them that are not trained through non-consential scraping. Just because some of the people making AI models are assholes don't mean everyone making AI models is an asshole.
poVoq@slrpnk.net · -2 pts · 1d
Name one that is actually useful đ¤ˇ
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1d
You want me to do a basic internet search for you?
Fine: https://www.fairlytrained.org/certified-models
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1d
You haven't heard people whine and complain about art theft as much as I have. I agree with what you're saying about large companies scraping data but you are being too charitable to these people. People do indeed bitch and moan about art theft and I have no tolerance for that level of liberal apologia.
poVoq@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 1d
So it is fine to ignore the consent of artists? Sure, they usually talk about copyright, but what most mean is consent and not the legal construct.
Also, "bitch and moan" is pretty mysogynist language, especially in this context.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
You're right. I'm sorry about that. I should have known to avoid language like that. I changed it to something better.
As for the other thing though. I'm not on board with that either. That's just a socially enforced version of Intellectual property. It all converges on the idea that people are allowed to own intangible stuff like ideas, or bits. It's the same liberal idea and expectation as copyright law just with different enforcement. Not so different though, they both expect blind compliance and assume moral superiority.
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 1d
We dont have a "general" tolerance. We have a tolerance for local non-corporate models.
black0ut@pawb.social · -1 pts · 1d
I am also against genAI.
I've heard many arguments for it, mainly from tankies, but also from leftist spaces and anarchists. The ideological idea seems to be that it is a way to allow everyone to have access to things they weren't skilled enough to do. Something like the "democratization" of labor.
I am obviously against that statement, mainly in 2 fronts.
First, we have skilled labor for a reason. Some people dedicated years of their life to perfect a skill or a trade, and they are trustworthy experts with experience in the matter. It would be unfair for those people if they got replaced by a sloppier version of themselves, after spending so much time and effort into their skills.
I would also not trust a machine like I would a human, because the machine has no experience and can't make decisions. We're removing the human value of a skill, while also reducing its quality, when we could promote collaboration between humans, and make them feel valued while getting a better result.
Second, AI was built on stolen labor. Even if you use a self hosted model, running on old hardware that was thrown away, using solar and wind energy, its usage is still morally wrong.
The truth is, all the current models were trained on databases of data mined without consent, in many cases to the detriment of its providers.
On top of that, even if the models are used locally (and even if they are tuned locally), the initial training happens on massive datacenters that consume lots of resources. And what you get isn't the first attempt at making a model. For every successful model out there, thousands of other models were trained and abandoned.
AI is also currently making us dumber, and multiple studies have already shown it. A lot of pro-AI people have already become dependent on it, and because of that they will defend it. Even if it would have been against their morals. It's normal, we as humans tend to get defensive in those cases. But it means a lot of pro-AI discussion in leftist spheres is driven by that.
I think we should be really careful of AI because of that. AI is like a drug, and once you become dependent, you can't easily go back. Our brains are wired to offload their thinking to AI, and once they do that, picking it back up is a big effort.
I also haven't gone into the artist rabbithole. Of course, genAI harms artists. All kinds of them. Writers, painters, photographers, musicians, etc. People are replacing human art with synthetic slop, to the detriment of artists.
Sometimes it's because they don't know better. Sometimes it's because they feel like they couldn't be able to create something without the "help" of AI. But art is not the end result, art is the process. And by using AI, you're destroying the process to end up with and end result.
I feel like the same arguments above apply to genAI usage for "art". People are replacing artists with the lower effort and lower quality versions of them, which wouldn't even be possible without stealing the art of those artists in the first place.
This comment is already long and ranty enough, and it's late at night, so I don't expect it to be very coherent. So I won't go deeper.
However, as an aside, I'll mention that I've been blanket banned before from communities, genAI related and not, by MysticMushroom, for making anti AI comments somewhere else. I have asked another mod for an unban in a non genAI related community ( !europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com ). Afaik MysticMushroom unbanned me after asking, so credits for that.
dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
Is it "unfair" to bakers that I make my own bread at home with a bread machine? What about using a calculator? Or a dishwashing machine?
Well, it's not all built on stolen labor. A lot of it is built on data that was given away freely. You also didn't really provide a reason why it would still be morally wrong.
They don't have to use massive resources, we just choose to do them that way because of capitalism. Cities use massive amounts of resources, and many of them aren't successfull on the first try. Should we stop building cities?
The rest of your post is more of a complaint about capitalism, and misunderstandings of how we choose to make AI models, not how they inherently have to be made.
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · -4 pts · 1d
The sloppers are gonna delete this. I posted something really similar earlier. Don't talk to sloppers like they're people. They're not. Their brains are rotted and they're incapable of honesty. Online they are very similar to fascists, though differences do come up in person.
A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
Dehumanization is the tool of the enemy
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · -2 pts · 1d
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · -2 pts · 1d
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
Nice to block you too. It'd be nice if we could have that convo where we were, but I guess you are a coward and a Disney-Adult who can only mischaracterize discourse.
All your arguments against AI existing because a chud exists who will generate pr0n with it? Make me want to ask if you think trans women should be allowed firearms.
Your points may as well be:
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · -2 pts · 1d
I'm actually okay with the porn. The images are uncanny and irrational but I don't have to look at them. Blocking you now, because you're a vicious little shit goblin that doesn't seem able to read anything that's not actively going down on you.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
Everyone is free to have opinions. That's the point of art. You can love it, you can hate it, you can not even consider it art yourself. It's all subjective. When you learn to respect opinions by agreeing to disagree or using the block button if you can't work things out you make the experience better for yourself and others.
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · -4 pts · 1d
Its not art. Its an image without art, like a pie chart generated with Microsoft office. That's fine. Sometimes you want a pie chart or a tits octopus but aren't willing to bug an artist about it. But you're probably a lost cause, in every sense.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
You can have that opinion. But we're in a world where this is considered art:
Not everyone does. Something is art when some people consider it art. If someone considers a pie chart to be art then it indeed is art. It's all subjective based on opinion. I'm not going to avoid saying that this:
Is a form of art to me and some people just because it upsets you or you disagree.
That's also subjective. I think the same about you. For example I think that you are a pro-capitalist and pro-copyright liberal. Who, either due to ignorance or malice supports the most subtle yet most systemic aspects of the capitalist world we live in right now and is unwilling to question your support of those. Things like copyright, how someone can own bits. That's my opinion though, and I know you will disagree.
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus · 1 pts · 1d
Edit: I originally wrote a big long comment in response to this. I notice that you've been getting dogpiled for your opinions on art. That is bad and I support your right to express your opinions and tastes. So I spoilered the comment so you don't see this massive wall of text because I don't want to pile on, but I do want to have a critical discussion. I don't know...maybe wait until the people have stopped dogpiling you before you unspoiler the original comment? Hope you're doing okay.
::: spoiler big long comment
I'm not here to tell you what to think, but I actually think that both images are not art. In my view, the purpose of the banana piece is to stimulate this exact discussion, i.e. to deliberately exist on the boundary between art and non-art, so reasonable people can definitely disagree. I see you've been getting dunked on for your opinions on art, which isn't cool and I don't mean to police your tastes. But I do want to comment.
In my view, the banana stuck to a wall is performance art. It is presenting an ordinary banana as if it was art. It's quite funny đ. But the banana itself and duct tape itself?...not really art. The image? Not really art. It's funny, it's definitely worth something...but it's not art. It's a banana. It's a random product of evolution, and the image is just a photograph of that with a piece of duct tape. (You could argue, perhaps, that the cultivation of that breed of banana is art...but that's not what's on display here. It's just a banana.)
It's not the same class of thing as a painting. In particular, it's not the same class of thing as a toddler drawing some crappy little scribbles. That is art. It's incompetent art, but it's art. I can't quite put my finger on why...but I think it has something to do with the intentionality of the toddler. It has to do with the fact that something is being attempted. There's a story to that toddler, what they wanted to achieve with that scribble, what they wanted to communicate if anything. You feel me? I'm not an art critic, so I am absolutely willing to admit that my opinion is a little imprecise.
Similarly, I don't think that the AI generated image you provided is art. Perhaps it is straddling the boundary since someone prompted it into existence, but it is not within the interior of art. It's compelling, it's aesthetically interesting...but it's not the same thing as a toddler scribbling on a paper. And if you were to eventually change my opinion on this image, you would basically have to convince me that you (or whomever was the person who caused this image to come into being) were more intimately involved in the creative process.
That doesn't mean you can't like it. That doesn't mean you can't even present it like art, critique it like art, or enjoy it like art. But I would argue that it, along with the banana, are not art. They're each some other category of objects.
I suppose you could then argue that presenting AI generated images as art then is a performance art piece, like presenting a banana taped to a wall as art. In my view, this has two problems:
So I am not necessarily against the use of AI within a larger art project, but the idea of presenting an AI generated image to me with no further modification of the product...the first few times it was neat, but now it's taken over our culture. And it was never art to begin with. It was (and sometimes still is) a compelling technical product, but it's not art in my view. That does not mean you should feel bad about enjoying AI images or whatever, whatever makes you happy, but I do feel that calling unedited AI generated images "art" is a category error.
Again, reasonable minds can differ on this issue. I just want to offer my perspective.
:::
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1d
That's perfectly fine. The great thing about art is that it's subjective to everyone. Some people don't consider any digital stuff art. Some people think art needs to be 100% original (collages aren't art to them) and in this day and age people have differing opinions on whether AI images are a form of art.
It's all subjective. That's kind of the point of art. We make of it what we make of it. I remember one artist who ate the fat removed from his own liposuction (made it into meatballs) and considered that art. I think that's gross and creepy and isn't really art but that's also my opinion and there will be people who disagree with me. Some people don't consider photography art. I don't really agree.
If you want some context on the AI image, it's the result of me feeding garbage data to the stable diffusion model which caused it to panic and spit out a lot of random stuff. Then I picked the ones that had the least amount of form or structure in them. Some might consider this more equivalent to those partly corrupted photos that happened when a thief stole a laptop belonging to the photographer, wiped it, and it was recovered but the photos were partly corrupted and she decided to use them as art because the effect was interesting. That's what I was going for with that anyway, something like it. Which is what I created !stable_diffusion_abstract@lemmy.dbzer0.com for as well. Whether someone would consider this similar to that is up for debate since I'm intentionally messing these images up as opposed to photos becoming corrupted by chance.
SaltyPeanutTesticles@futurology.today · -3 pts · 1d
nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au · -7 pts · 1d
This post is written in slop style.
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
That feeling when the anti-ai discourse looks hard to discern from bots.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
It's because an insane amount of it is inherently anti-intellectual by nature. Some people dislike AI but aren't content with it being opinions so they will lie and use whatever they can to justify it in reality. Even if it's false, not applicable, or straight up harassment.