Does anyone else hate AI?
-
@Insr That meme is hilarious
This is totally me -
@dapose said in Does anyone else hate AI?:
Did roads make humans more stupid?
LOL! It's a terrible analogy...
Roads don't bullshit i.e. make a fake things up...
When you use a road, you still use your legs...When a human mind looks for a piece of information and checks some sources, discusses them with others, then synthesizes it, this can: 1. train a (social) mind, 2. allow for a creative insight, i.e., to spot something novel.
LLMs can't do it... - They look only for existing connections...
For a human, not using the mind means atrophy of it...And I don't even need to go further and discuss the meaning of non-ergodicity, power laws, and fitness landscapes in creativity... LLMs (and their midwit fans) simply can't comprehend this as they just follow Gaussian models...
-
@dapose Very bad example because automotives made cities unbearable to live in. Much of the charm of cities was clever use of space so everything you could dream of is in walking distance. Now that cleverness and all it's positive side effects is lost. Cars, and the laws of locality they circumvent, are genuinely a thing that made the world a stupider place.
-
Hating AI in general would be reactionary. As others have pointed out it is "nothing more" than an advanced word association database-machine. But if this is already sufficient to do a passable job of replacing some low-tier knowledge professionals like doctors and lawyers, (or perhaps nurses and paralegals) that is great.
I also welcome the fact that AI signals the end of intellectual property rights. The contradictions are beginning to sharpen there.
-
Don’t be naive; or worse- ignorant.
Are you familiar with Huxley’s “Brave New World”?
-
@Peatful It is not surprising that a British person enjoying the fruits of world empire would write a weepy treatise about "the importance of true individualist adventure". Code: the importance of backbreaking labor for people halfway around the world that I ideally never see, to fund my trips to the cafe for African coffee.
This is what Orwell was as well. He writes his truest fear as that of being objectively understood, which is very telling.
I've 1984 about 5 times, Brave New World probably twice. They were my sauna books when I was a teenager. I wanted something to read that I didn't value very much and could happily sweat on.
Doctors, especially the mediocre ones, "may as well be" AI machines already. The fact that these medical association devices are implanted in a human brain does not make them special. In fact, their subjectivity in part works to keep them closed to the complete and scathing critique necessary of the medical ideology. When the ideology is directly machine-generated, it is easier to critique in this way. Shelve it along version #221 as the broken tool that it is.
The fact that DeepSeek was able to more or less from-scratch develop a state of the art LLM gives me great hope that this technology can develop along objective lines instead of those brought down by the western elites.
-
yes, it isn't good to rely on.
However, it is very helpful when researching things in this Peat sphere and sciences. One reason being if you're paying attention you must question the ai about its assumptions. Since the Peatsphere is so often contrarian or just "empirical," this attitude has to be brought to the ai. It must always be questioned, and sometimes it is still wrong.I was never a good chemistry or biology student, that's for sure. And I understand there are dogmas that need to be questioned. But before getting into assumptions and dogmas, there are some basic facts that the AIs will communicate, just things like the names of enzymes or proteins or hormones. All of this is very technical so it's nice to have the ai on hand more as a dictionary or reference. But you have to be very specific sometimes.
Obviously I'm not going to automatically believe an ai pulling sources from wiki, or random articles that may not have strong evidence or sources. But it helps to create a general picture, and in the case of drug or vitamin interactions and all of this biological stuff, it's very interesting and helpful.
Again, it cannot tell us anything beyond what is presently available (if its even looking at all of the papers and books that are, which they aren't). We don't know what we don't know. But what we know might be nonsense or half-true at best, as Peat often showed. That's the crux of the matter. It can provide information, but we basically have to construct a narrative or picture of what we're trying to learn. The ai does not understand any story / picture beyond what is often "the case." There's probably some Pareto distribution principle guiding the ai's ability to affirm platitudes and ignore problems and questions present in the knowledge relevant to the query.
-
@Korven said in Does anyone else hate AI?:
I guess the main concern is what @Kvirion wrote about making humans less creative.
I mean, Ctrl F made me less creative when reading digital books. To the point where I didn't want to read pdfs that weren't text-searchable because I'd want to find all locations of a given word. But again, it's not really about the technology. How people use AI determines what the AI is for. Much of this is outside our control. I don't use it that much, but it's a useful search tool that does seem to pull information a bit more conveniently than search engines, because the internet is like a junkyard now.
-
@Rah1woot said in Does anyone else hate AI?:
I also welcome the fact that AI signals the end of intellectual property rights. The contradictions are beginning to sharpen there.
Why is this good?
-
@pittybitty said in Does anyone else hate AI?:
@dapose Very bad example because automotives made cities unbearable to live in. Much of the charm of cities was clever use of space so everything you could dream of is in walking distance. Now that cleverness and all it's positive side effects is lost. Cars, and the laws of locality they circumvent, are genuinely a thing that made the world a stupider place.
Roads were not the cause of automobiles.
Interstates ordered by the fed / DOD is what largely destroyed and fractured all cohesive cities. Caro's book "Power Broker" goes into that. Interstates had overpasses, large tunnels, etc., all of this was what made "roads" unbearable. Not simply roads.Most American cities were grand and large, but nice, even the industrial ones. Cities like Buffalo and St. Louis were utopian in design (like Philly and NY, originally).
Cars did not do this, politicians and oligarchs did this. Everyone did it. Everyone's complicit in what happens.
In the same way, ai, because of its bizarre contradictoriness, I would argue, is forcing people to recreate narratives and social structures. Language is being revolutionized through firsthand experience and empiricism. I can't explain how I know this, but I think 2020 was a big marker for this particular reset. Society, structure, language.
-
@Corngold Many reasons. Among them, with no patents, there would be no reason to push Prozac over orange juice and vitamin B1.
-
this thread is the virgin AI hater vs. the chad LLM appreciator meme
-
@pittybitty I disagree, AI's like ChatGPT collate and retrieve information for us in a way that we have naturally done for ourselves up until this point, removing the need for us to do this day to day will cause skill-fade and lethargy in this aspect.
It's like having a parent you listen to without any real challenge, except you are meant to stop listening to your parents to some degree, go out and figure things out for yourself from adolescence.
This stops us from doing that, stifling growth in the soul.If they were just complex search engines then you would only need a good RAG and a tiny neural net, many successful AI's (like GPT) don't use RAGs at all and are huge neural nets.
-
The blind can’t see.
One act of obedience is better than one hundred sermons.
-DB
-
I'm not aware M"L" has pushed patent instrumentation to the chopping block in any way. It's just copyright afaik. Not much seems to have changed there, patent registers are already public in-formation and the degree to which a person can be inspired by something they can find on one is still a legal minefield.
Meanwhile a computational mechanism to resolve knowledge conflicts doesn't exist yet. So an "N"N isn't particularly useful to rule on legal matters. And the reason they may currently be useful in "medicine" is because the adjacent legal industrial complex can make practice appear boolean.
China's struggled with this too. Their dance with corporatism makes for a fascinating read I'm nowhere near done with.
-
Which way though Peatful. Rah's a heat seeker of sorts. And a way with words.
-
@Corngold I get the argument about AI/LLMs being decent search engines - and it is true Google has been declining as well (you just get the worst shit on the top SERPs).
Though I think you could make a convincing argument that getting your information "served on a silver platter" instead of actually reading and digesting primary information and drawing your own conclusions, in fact, is dumbing down people and inhibiting the creative process.
However I am not primarily thinking about LLMs application as a fancy search engine, it's more how it will come to shape the culture and language.
Already, pretty much all organisations/companies are on board with using AI to create content, which means that 1. employees are not exercising their creative abilities and 2. it means that people are only coming into contact with words and pictures that are cobbled together by a stupid AI algorithm. This to me seems almost like a nightmare when nothing is actually produced by humans? It is certainly going to make everything feel a lot soulless. What are the long-term implications? Etc etc etc
-
Off topic but I think the internet officially became useful when Russia gave us sci-hub on top of social media. An NN can't make sense of that. Yet.
-
The power that is being given to AI to make health safety decisions is getting scary.
Garbage in, garbage out.
-
@DavidPS said in Does anyone else hate AI?:
Garbage in, garbage out.
I can envision a future in which an AI robot fills the void created by Toni Fauci's retirement and declares "I am the science".
OpenAI and the FDA Are Holding Talks About Using AI In Drug Evaluation
