Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34117495
[OC]
Original still created by @gedogfx (IG). Title source: “Inkl”
Edit: I’m not on any other social media platforms, so feel free to share this elsewhere if you want
Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34117495
[OC]
Original still created by @gedogfx (IG). Title source: “Inkl”
Edit: I’m not on any other social media platforms, so feel free to share this elsewhere if you want
Very ironic imho to use AI to celebrate this guy.
From his twitter my impression is that Mangione is one of those weirdly pro-AI people, if anything
Why?
Anti-AI is a small primitivism and/or IP protection movement.
It has nothing to do with the working class struggle. Or the right to have proper healthcare.
United Healthcare was using AI to deny claims.
Also saying AI has nothing to do with the working class struggle is hilarious.
This is such a stretch. AI used to deny claims and video animation AI are so far apart that you might as well be complaining that both of these two things are using the same electrons 🙄
Well, I disagree. They may be trained on different data sets but both represent the same ethical problems with generative AI right now, imho.
Clearly you don’t even know what AI means and just parrot whatever meme you hear. What ethical issues? You’re comparing copyright theft to what? Using machine learning to decide whether insurance claim should be accepted? These aren’t even the same realm of computing and as close as a calculator is to Candy Crush.
So, you don’t think there’s ethical issues with letting machine learning who lives and dies? When did I say they were the exact same technology? Do not assume what I do and do not know based on things I did not say, my friend.
Nah dude you said it’s the same ethical issue when it’s clearly not. Machine deciding whether who lives or dies vs what exactly? What’s the other issue that is the same “ethical issue” here with image generating AI? Which part is the same or even remotely similar?
Maybe you mean that both technologies are problematic? But that’s really not all that useful because ALL technology is problematic by the very nature of it being a force of change.
No, please read my comment carefully. I said they represent the same ethical problems. You should not use quotes when you are not, you know, actually quoting me.
I am maybe not the best with words but I did not mean to imply they are the exact same issue. Please stop replying to me about this topic now.
Probably also using computers. And I’ve heard that CEO drink water too.
You know that the ones who started anti-AI movement were capitalists, don’t you? Poor capitalists but capitalists that want to live without working out of the profits given by their Intelectual Private Property.
Primitivism are actually working against the interest of the working class. Without technology the workers are the ones who will need to work for more hours to obtain the same level of life quality.
Any proper worker cannot wait for having to do less tedious work, and mess workhours in general thanks to the improvements in technology.
I don’t have a problem with the concept of generative AI my guy. What you call “primitivism” I call having an ethical issue with basically everything surrounding how it’s done right now. Also, I am a creative person so I do actually believe in IP.
what do you see as the difference between a person seeing your work, Ingesting it into their brain to reprogram their brain, allowing them to make parallel works, and an AI ingesting your work as part of its training data?
Our current IP laws prohibit making money on exact copies of your work. That is not what AI does.
The person.
We live in a capitalist word. Almost every use of every technology is unethical.
But people hold a special grudge against AI.
Same example as before. Is United Healthcare use AI for denying treatment it got pointed out. If they used a Java app and traditional algorithms to do so, it’s not the technology which we point out, don’t we?
If AI is forced in windows 11 by Microsoft, it’s pointed out. But if they force Teams, we don’t hate communication applications, don’t we? We don’t say that communication applications are bad and unethical. Even if most of them are as property of big tech as AI is.
Now the question is, why AI is getting this special treatment?
In order to get the answer I traces where the hated started. There was AI before. And the first by jump in generative AI was not hated, quite the contrary it got plenty of praise. But then Image generation came… And it rubbed artist the wrong way, thus the anti-AI movement started.
Also I looked for other correlations with people against AI. And I found that they tend to be against any new technology from the last 5-10 years or so.
So that’s how I found the answer of that question. Just looking at the origins and looking at who had those opinions.
I have found that the genesis of most things is the key to really understand them. And this genesis really explains why if an AI takes workers jobs it’s hated and pointed out, but if a python script does the same it’s not.
I’m an open minded person. If I get a better answer to that question that bugs me, I would reconsider my position. But I’m yet to read any rational answer on:
Why AI gets a special treatment when judging its unethical uses when compared with any other technology also being unethically used by corporations and capitalism?
Btw, being creative is not excuse to believe in Intelectual Property. Plenty of creative people do not believe in Private Property and/or Intelectual Property. I can make an example out of myself on this, as I make small videogames for a hobby, which is a form of art, and all of them all open source, I didn’t even put a license on them of any kind. So being creative does not need to equal believing in Intelectual Property, same as working with means of production does not equal believing in the private ownership of those means of production. What you do and what you believe in can be, and often are, separated.
You’ve got a particular worldview that I’m not interested in engaging with. Happy holidays.
Fair enough. Have good holidays!
You are correct, AI is getting a lot of flack for unethical behavior, when unethical behavior is inherent to the neo capitalist mindset.
And primitivism is obviously on the rise too, which is represented by the rise in individualism, nationalism, fascism worldwide.
If you think it has nothing to do with the working class struggle you need to go back to square one and begin again. There isn’t much that isn’t impacted by the rise of AI.
I wont take lessons of primitivists, sorry.
People against technological advancements are against the progress of the working class.
The only chance for people to live good lives is to delegate a great amount of work to the machines. That’s just it.
If you think that primitivism is the answer and got fooled by the anti-AI movement you should be going back to square one. Start reading the basics until you learn that technological progress is not the problem, human greediness and capitalism is.
You’re tilting at windmills. It’s not about rejecting technological advancement. It’s about ensuring its fairness and accessability.
Yes, technology can be (and is) used for social good. It can also be (and is) used to opress and supress. What’s more both dynamics are happening at the same time. The world isn’t black-and-white. The human condition is complex.
That’s exactly my point.
AI is just another technology. If some corporation does bad things with it is just bad. If some people do good things with it then is good.
But people charge at AI just because itself. They are against the technology. Not the corporations using it.
I have been given the example “But UH is using AI to deny medical treatment”. What if instead of AI they would have used a Java application? They would be against Java? No, because that argument is not rational.
They are just against AI because etsy artists who made easy money doing porn commission got their hustle broken by AI doing a better job for free. That’s just how the anti-AI movement somehow got mixed in some leftist circles, because etsy artists are too influential in those circles. And their complain got blown out of proportions.
No one is really talking about AI as inherently bad. It’s current implementation is impossible to separate from consolidated ownership by big tech and environmental rape in the name of delivering a technology that has no clear use case to the end consumer yet.
Just because people don’t want unpack all of that nuance for pedants like you doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Until AI means something different than the transgressive genAI integration and resource hoarding of big Tech - indeed until AI is no longer synonymous with Big Tech, then all of this wretched handwringing you’re engaging in over the distinction between the two will continue to be useless, meaningless, and fucking annoying.
Spend your time on something useful. Would you like a new prompt?
They actually are though.
Environmental rape. Fun meaningless term, when having Photoshop open for hours is more environmentally damaging that creating the equivalent with Stable Diffusion.
You cannot unpack any nuance because you are intellectually incapable of doing so. As you only seem to follow the latest trend for your favourite influencer, without actually making any real analysis of what you are saying or writing. The “funny meaningless terminology” you used is more than enough indicator to me that behind those words there are not any thoughts.
I’m not big tech and I use AI, in a computer with a top 40W consumption. So try again cave boy. Try tell me how I’m “raping” earth with that use of AI.
Sorry for all the names thrown in this post, but you got it coming.
I hope that if you hate AI because it’s overly and needlessly used by big tech everywhere you at least would have the decency of hating JavaScript too.
Seems like you’re prescribing a lot of opinions to the people you’re replying to. But if you go back and read what they wrote carefully you should see that your deductions and assumptions about what they think don’t really stand the test of reason and semantics. Especially given how much of a tech-focused forum this is. Every third post is about Linux - so realistically what are the chances that you are enaging with primitivists on here?
Linux is not a “scary new technology”. It has been around forever.
Try to look for a positive view on any technology that has been blooming in the last 5-10 years instead. You’ll find few. At least I find few.
For instance, self driving cars are also hated. Digital currency instead of cash (not talking about cryptocurrency, just things like digital euro, or digital yuan). Any form of digitalization of anything that wasn’t digital until the last 5 years seems to be hated.
Welp, even smartphones seems to be hated. The other day I stumbled into a post where a lot of people said that they preferred old fliphones and where considering getting one instead of a smartphone.
Technobros used as derogatory term. Hell, even Luigi was being called out here for being a “technobro”.
Primitivism is on the rise. I wish it wasn’t, but it is.
If you think that what is being called “AI” right now is actually a useful tool for the working class when big corpo dumbasses are selling it as a replacement for workers: You’re fucking delusional
Ah. Here we are. The Schrodinger AI.
People are now behaving like MAGA with the immigrants. At the same same time too bad to do anything useful and also stealing everyone’s jobs.
Not surprised that two identical ways of thinking end up with the same arguments.
At the end, irrational thinkers are all just the same.
Except anyone with a fucking brain who has been paying attention can see that actually happening with AI. It’s utter garbage that barely works, and it has been used to replace actual people or other tools that do work.
This isn’t about being against the advancement of technology. The technology itself fucking sucks. We can do better.
Anyone with a brain know that anti-AI movement started because etsy artists doing porn commissions for a living got replaced, because AI can do a better job on that for free.
And because those etsy artists are incredibly influential in some circles the anti-AI feeling got blown out of proportions.
But making wanna-be entrepreneurs the backbone of the workers movement is not moving the working class anywhere.
The places where I have used the technology works just fine if you know how to use it. For programming it’s incredibly more efficient that going search to stack overflow or github. And to do refractors of your code it can save a lot of time.
In my spare time I also use AI for image recognition as part of a self-hosted security system. And works far better that any other solution.
I can actively choose to use the technology or no. I choose to use it because it makes my job easier. Simple as that.
Only Etsy artists, huh?
You really haven’t paid attention or you’re brainless.
It’s incredible how successfully the AI topic has been hijacked by copyright propaganda.
Copyright is bad, period. Barking at AI for using copyrighted shit for training just makes it less accessible to train for anyone BUT the mega rich.
Let’s say we do ban copyright data for training. Then only Google, Microsoft and Apple can releastically source data for training. That and countries that don’t respect this like China and Iran right? Ok, so now they hired farms of people to produce training material and release their models that NOBODY can compete with. Everything is literally worse in every possible way now and AI is fully owned by corporate overlords.
I genuinely don’t understand the though process of these people. We want information to be free and accessible to everyone, no?
deleted by creator
I think that’s a fair take though the world is allergic to “open source” being a part of our government. I mean, we can’t even open source government projects paid by citizens in most countries so introducing open source as part of our governing process is basically impossible.