It’s unclear from the article what exactly he did wrong. There’s nothing wrong with using AI as long as you triple check the info it gives you.
The main problem we’re facing today with this tech is people thinking it’s magically perfect and can operate without human supervision. Was that what he was doing?
The main problem with the output of LLMs is people not checking results, but there are ethical problems with the effective use of it too. Especially if you’re you’re dealing with the major platforms, who have shown no qualms allying themselves with fascist governments, surveillance capitalists, or just generally being cavalier about workers rights. (And obviously extracting value from the commons and renting it out on a scale never before seen, but that’s the obvious one.)
I would say the same thing about hosting services on AWS. The corporate world does it because it just makes financial sense, but all they care about is outputs. I expect better from individuals who are trying to send a message.
AI is literally destroying the environment. How the FUCK do so many people not realise this. The data centres use massive amounts of water, their owners refuse to use renewables, they take up space on the power grid so it becomes impossible to build new housing, etc ad nauseum.
Except you don’t need to eat meat, you’re just justifying the destruction you like. That’s not to say that AI is anything close to as relevant as food, but the point still stands, meat production is destructive to the environment.
Something can be both useful and also destructive. Pretty sure people have done the maths and to approach the levels of efficiency that say meat has you’d be consuming a lot more calories. Similarly actual milk is better than soy milk.
This isn’t to diss people that make the choice, but your quality of life will be worse, so yes I count that as those meat products being necessary, in spite of the environmental damage. I think there are better ways to fix that. Diversifying the meat industry, lowering food waste, etc. What seems more interesting at the moment is lab grown meat, since it has all the pros with none of the cons, except cost.
And I’m “pretty sure” that you are talking about what you WISH were true, not what you KNOW is true. Unfortunately, many people in this forum actually know what IS true, and you are so far off the mark, you would be humiliated if you actually grasped it.
Pretty sure people have done the maths and to approach the levels of efficiency that say meat has you’d be consuming a lot more calories.
What does meat’s “efficiency” have to do with anything related to caloric intake? If I consume 1000 calories of meat or 1000 calories of vegetables, I’ve still consumed 1000 calories. I can only assume you mean I would have to eat a larger quantity of vegetables get the same amount of calories, and that’s not the argument you think it is when people by and large consume too many calories and don’t get enough micronutrients as it is.
but your quality of life will be worse, so yes I count that as those meat products being necessary, in spite of the environmental damage
I’m not even a full vegetarian, but even I know this is just self justification for what you want to do. One of my partners is a vegetarian, and I cut back on like 80-90% of my meat intake and my quality of life (like energy and general physical/mental wellbeing) is the same or better than it was a few years ago.
The only good points you made was about food waste and lab meat, the rest is just cope.
Sorry my thoughts got lost over multiple messages. I meant to get a similar amount of protein you need to consume more vegan food, especially calorie rich ones, most restaurants that I’ve seen when they have comparable items the vegan one had way more calories. I’d love to hear more of your experiences with this as someone who’s gone through that, do you find it harder to stay in shape?
Also thank you for actually engaging with me on this, the other person was very volatile.
I meant to get a similar amount of protein you need to consume more vegan food, especially calorie rich ones, most restaurants that I’ve seen when they have comparable items the vegan one had way more calories.
Sure, but optimizing for protein isn’t the best methodology. I guess if you’re determined to max protein, meat is a better source. But if you want a better and more rounded diet, especially one low in saturated fats and high in fiber, the vegetarian (or even reduced meat) pathway is much better. Doubly so if you’re concerned about heart disease, colon cancer, or any of the side effects of eating too much protein.
Animal ag consumes more food than it produces!! JFC people! We grow several times more plants than humanity can possibly eat, and then we refine it through the bodies of vulnerable individuals and murder them. THAT’S NOT FOOD, that atrocity.
It is food, get off your high horse if you plan on convincing anyone to back you. Topics and opinions are more nuanced than you want and people can’t easily get boxed.
Yes I’m aware the food industry is one of the least efficient industries out there. No I don’t think pure abolition is realistic or useful, as the products that come out of it can’t be replaced, you can adjust your diet to get proteins and such from other places, but beans and nuts are going to rack up your calories a ton compared to meat.
And calling someone a useful idiot is bold while you’re taking the pressure off of the ai industry which is not producing something useful for people (unlike meat which in spite of the failings of the industry is still helpful*) to say “but what about this other thing?!”. We can deal with both, but one of those is definitely worse than the other and it’s the one that we have existed without for thousands of years.
So if I grind up your children and eat it, they become “just food” and you should get off your high horse. If my industry changes the climate and you burn and freeze, it’s “just food” and you should get over yourself. It’s like saying, “It’s just a joke, brah!” It’s a childish attempt to evade responsibility for the consequences of your choices.
but beans and nuts are going to rack up your calories a ton compared to meat.
Where are you even getting this?? This is bonkers.
If you are getting enough calories from whole food plants, you are necessarily getting enough protein. If you eat nothing but rice, and you are getting enough calories, you are necessarily getting enough protein. “Protein” is a bullshit marketing angle. You are a victim of marketing.
Plants are nutrient-dense and calorie-poor. This is what you want for health. Animal flesh is exactly the opposite, plus contains things that actually kill you. The more meat a human eats, the younger a human dies and the more major diseases a human experiences. Just google: “meat all cause mortality” and educate yourself A LITTLE TINY BIT.
The things you are saying are so utterly uninformed, but you’re so confidently incorrect. It’s maddening. We both know for certain that you have never researched animal ag. Why are you trying to advance arguments when you know you have never researched it? What is motivating this stupid, arrogant behaviour?
We can deal with both, but one of those is definitely worse than the other
The worse one is animal ag, by orders of magnitude!! Fucking do some research. Animal ag produces more climate change effects than ALL TRANSPORTATION ON EARTH COMBINED. Data centers don’t even move the needle beside that. It’s wildly hypocritical to criticize people’s private AI use on the basis of water consumption while you consume animals. If you actually gave a shit about water use, you’d be looking to your own easily changed behaviour first. But this is just a conditioned response founded in ignorance. It’s piling on and superstition. As soon as the subject of AI leaves your mind, you stop giving a single shit about water usage.
While this is name-calling (and the proverbial last refuge of a so-and-so) you’re not wrong. I wish I had the capacity to advocate effectively.
You might have heard of the so called “overview effect” reported by space travelers who have observed the Earth from a great enough distance that the entire planet is in view. It changes their psychological perspective. I don’t know if it’s a real thing, but I have experienced something analogous.
I grew up with the same social conditioning as everyone else, to see animals as means rather than ends, to disregard their experiences and suffering, to deny that they even capable of having those things. I committed thousands of grievous acts of unforgivable cruelty to individuals who all had the capacity to actually love me, the same as I love anyone else, but I didn’t care. It didn’t bother me, so I thought. In reality, I had a whole toolbox of psychological tricks that I used on myself to avoid perceiving this cruelty and violence. To avoid perceiving myself as a cruel and violent person, a bad person.
These self-serving beliefs about animals and the tools one uses to enforce and manage the cognitive dissonance are collectively called carnism. Through a series of difficult choices and radical honesty, slowly at first, and then in a great rush, I lost my carnism. I was finally able to see things as the are, at least in this respect. I saw the whole fucking thing. And I saw what I had done, in the very same moment that I lost all my defense mechanisms that protect me from what I have done.
I have to admit, much of my grace has gone out of me. Much of my respect for my fellow progressives, much of my sense of safety. I feel like a raw exposed nerve whenever it comes up, and it’s been ten years. But I also feel that I must never again make use of those tools carnism gave me to ignore reality, and that I don’t deserve to have comfort with the things that I have done. I have not yet learned to manage these feelings such that I can engage with abusers productively.
I think everyone should reject carnism, but realistically, having gone through it, I know that most people will never even attempt it. Reality is brutal and horrible. People need their lies just to get through it. I’m trying to accept that, but it is proving even harder.
it’s the one that we have existed without for thousands of years.
We have had neither for more than a few decades. Animal ag as it exists today did not exist when I was born. There is several times more biomass in humans and farmed animals than all the wild land animals combined. This has not been going on for thousands of years, that is utterly uninformed and frankly amazingly unobservant.
You have no idea what you are talking about, but you’re soooo confident. It’s pointless to continue, you’re going to keep making shit up because you are unwilling to process the feelings that come up when you consider that you might be wrong. Which, I am sure you can appreciate, would put blood on your hands.
Like I said, if they can fix that problem, then I’m fine with it. The resources it currently consumes is the reason why I kind of detest 4K and 8K AI videos. But I also kind of detest 4K and 8K TVs and monitors. We don’t need that many god damn pixels. Unless you’re a bird of prey, 4K is a complete waste of electricity.
Lawns take up more water than all the datacenters. Golf courses take up more water. Get a fucking grip. You better not be complaining about water usage with the flesh of vulnerable individuals still stuck between your teeth because animal ag consumes an order of magnitude more water, emits more greenhouse gasses than all transportation combined, and gives NOTHING back but death and destruction.
Animal ag consumes more food than it produces. It is a method for investors to refine cheap, plentiful, safe, and sustainable plant food into a harmful, addictive, expensive luxury product. Many of the costs are hidden from the consumer in the form of subsidies.
Western meat consumption has multiplied several fold in the last couple of generations. There is no “need” to that, there is only “want” and pure addiction.
To say it gives nothing back is simply a lie though. It literally provides one of the most important things people need. Food. Just because it’s an inefficient method does not mean it provides nothing.
It’s not merely inefficient, it has a negative efficiency; the more you do it, the less food you have. To produce meat, we have to feed animals. To feed a combined biomass that dwarfs all wild land animals on earth, we need to grow food with agriculture. Growing food to feed to animals and then consuming the meat results in a net loss of food as compared to just growing the food. Every step up the food chain represents enormous losses. Animal ag does not produce food. I know that is hard to accept but it’s a unescapable thermodynamic reality.
The reason animal ag has exploded so much over recent decades is that it allows industrialists to capitalize the vast surplus of food that is grown. More food is grown than humans alone can possibly eat. But capitalism demands constant growth, or it eats itself. Animal ag creates demand for this surplus food. It doesn’t benefit anyone except the industrialists who exploit both us and the animals. Even returning to 1950s levels of animal ag intensity would slash its footprint to a barely significant fraction of what it is now. It’s an absolute catastrophe and people are conditioned to completely tune it out.
We need food, but animal ag consumes more food than it produces. Grazing and other forms of “resource upcycling” cannot make up the massive difference.
Well, that is debatable. For some its using Ai is a problem by definition, its not even about the result. A few issues: a) Ai is unethically trained on data without respecting the original license, b) using Ai (probably even paying for it) supports Ai companies, which in turn are causing the massive issues in the tech price increases.
This is like saying that smoking weed is unethical because of the murderous actions of the cartels who grow and distribute it. You’re problem with AI isn’t with the technology itself nor its use.
You’re problem with AI isn’t with the technology itself nor its use.
I’m not sure about the weed argument, can’t say anything about it. But first, my personal problem with Ai doesn’t matter to this disussion, as I was talking about what people could have an issue with, not about my personal problems. Secondly farming data without respecting the original license, not even linking to the source where it got from is in fact a problem with “its use”. That is an unsolved problem lot of people just ignore, which does not make it less of a problem (it makes it a bigger problem). And that is just a few issues I listed, not even talking about the problems of generated content. There are legitimate concerns using Ai, no matter how you frame it, some just choose to ignore it.
But first, my personal problem with Ai doesn’t matter to this disussion, as I was talking about what people could have an issue with, not about my personal problems.
Okay. Then the problem that people, not you particularly, have with AI isn’t with the technology itself nor its use, but the methods by which the companies “grow and harvest it”, so to speak.
Which I don’t even think is true. People have just lost their minds over this. If a company unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data, we don’t say that there are legitimate concerns using books.
If a company unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data, we don’t say that there are legitimate concerns using books.
Off course we say its a legitimate concern if someone unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data… The point of scraping and stealing data without respecting its license, training their software with it and using it commercially (or even non commercially) without giving even credit and not respecting its original license?
the problem that people … have with AI isn’t with the technology itself nor its use, but the methods by which the companies “grow and harvest it”, so to speak.
No, its not just the methods. I am talking about deep problems with the technology, the methods how companies go with it, and then its usage from company and end user. Ai trained with those data and used makes it impossible to respect the original license, for the user. So in this case, the company using the Ai AND the user of the model violate licenses. Maybe. Maybe not, if the data allows it. But we don’t know and CANNOT check and know for sure, that’s the problem. Just because you don’t understand the issue or don’t care does not make it less of a problem.
As an example with software licenses like GPL requires that any derivative works using this source code (such as Linux or whatever my personal program is licensed under GPL) has to be GPL licenses (Open Source) too. That is not debatable. That is how this license work. Now the Ai can be trained on this data, using the source code, and then? See where this goes? That is only one generalized example.
The difference is, you know which book you have a concern with. Ai does not operate like that. With using Ai, you don’t know which book the data is from and it is not possible for the Ai to tell you that. There are conceptional problems with Ai. Your book example does not work here, because that works differently than Ai.
We would be having a problem with it if every book was regurgitated stolen data. That’s kind of the core of how all of these generative AI models work to the point that their creators have argued in court that they wouldn’t exist at all if they weren’t allowed to steal all the training data.
It can be trained on the exact same free data that we can be trained on. Just like us, it doesn’t have to bypass paywalls. I think they’re arguing that if I can look at the Wikipedia and tell you that an avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers, then AI should be allowed to as well.
I think you need to read up on the difference between “free as in beer” and “free” licenses. Everything on Wikipedia is copyrighted under a GNU license, which requires any use to give credit AND ALSO be licensed under the GPL. Which AI models do not (and cannot) do.
Also, just conceptually… We built a giant, free library (and museum and art gallery and etc.) on the internet, and these parasitic AI companies came in and built a fence around it and started charging admission while massively polluting our cities and towns and gobbling up resources at an incredible rate. Then, even if you pay them their admission fees, the information you get is at best 70% correct. Why would anyone celebrate that?
I think they’re arguing that if I can look at the Wikipedia and tell you that an avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers, then AI should be allowed to as well.
This is misleading and dishonest. Its not just looking up a single free information. Ai does more than that. Ai will not only scrape and copy the entire article, it will also scrape and copy the entirety of Wikipedia. There are licenses attacked to the Wikipedia article we have to follow to, if we scrape and use it for other purposes. It will also scrape the entire web. That is not the same as just looking up an Avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers.
This is weirdly accusatory. I’m not sitting here in a black cape and stovepipe top hat, twirling my mustache.
Its not just looking up a single free information. Ai does more than that. Ai will not only scrape and copy the entire article, it will also scrape and copy the entirety of Wikipedia. There are licenses attacked to the Wikipedia article we have to follow to, if we scrape and use it for other purposes. It will also scrape the entire web. That is not the same as just looking up an Avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers.
If this is the way we’re going to look at it then I guess we have to throw this technology out the window. It seems like a bad idea to do that though.
I mostly agree, but even if LLMs were 100% correct all the time (they’re not), there are still some pretty serious ethical issues surrounding it. It is up to each person to decide if they find that acceptable or not.
I disagree with the moral panic about AI stealing things. They’re not Xerox machines. It does exactly what humans do except faster. Before AI, this YouTuber was reading a bunch of stuff, “stealing” things from it, and putting it back together in a different way, just like AI, except he actually understands what he’s reading.
I am concerned though about the resources it uses. But I don’t see that as an ethical issue. That’s more of a logistical issue. If they can make AI that doesn’t drink up Lake Michigan and doesn’t make the electrical grid scream, then more power to it.
My biggest concern whether people are for it or against it is that they don’t think it’s Skynet, or Data from Star Trek. It’s just a big dumb machine, a gigantic MENACE matchbox computer.
This makes it sound like it can do anything humans can do, but you’re actually wrong in a lot of different ways. Generative AI is a reconstruction machine. It takes the things it “knows” (because they don’t know anything, they’re just lots and lots of coefficients in giant matrices), and attempt to reconstruct from an incomplete data point.
They are actually a lot closer to Xerox machines than they are to humans. If you train gen AI on one thing, it will only know that one thing, and it will only recreate that one thing. It could never do more than that. Humans just do not fundamentally work that way. Like, if you want to say most stories are recombinations of other stories, fine, but that is wrong. There is an origin that was created by a human. Not everything is stolen.
There are many, many issues with gen AI, from the resources it uses, to its use in surveillance, to the fact that it is still wrong on fundamental ideas. It’s just kinda shit technology and the people that think it is awesome are usually the dumbest fucking morons I have ever met, and that is terrifying. Man, just learning the math and science behind it and how it works should be the bar, but none of them know how it fucking works or why it cannot improve without using more and more resources.
It’s unclear from the article what exactly he did wrong. There’s nothing wrong with using AI as long as you triple check the info it gives you.
The main problem we’re facing today with this tech is people thinking it’s magically perfect and can operate without human supervision. Was that what he was doing?
The main problem with the output of LLMs is people not checking results, but there are ethical problems with the effective use of it too. Especially if you’re you’re dealing with the major platforms, who have shown no qualms allying themselves with fascist governments, surveillance capitalists, or just generally being cavalier about workers rights. (And obviously extracting value from the commons and renting it out on a scale never before seen, but that’s the obvious one.)
I would say the same thing about hosting services on AWS. The corporate world does it because it just makes financial sense, but all they care about is outputs. I expect better from individuals who are trying to send a message.
AI is literally destroying the environment. How the FUCK do so many people not realise this. The data centres use massive amounts of water, their owners refuse to use renewables, they take up space on the power grid so it becomes impossible to build new housing, etc ad nauseum.
My God.
Yeah and so is animal agriculture…
Except you need food to eat, you don’t need AI.
You don’t need animal products to live, but I don’t disagree with your point about food. At least it’s actually for people.
AI is only for extracting the last bit of marrow from the bones of workers before making them completely obsolete.
Except you don’t need to eat meat, you’re just justifying the destruction you like. That’s not to say that AI is anything close to as relevant as food, but the point still stands, meat production is destructive to the environment.
Something can be both useful and also destructive. Pretty sure people have done the maths and to approach the levels of efficiency that say meat has you’d be consuming a lot more calories. Similarly actual milk is better than soy milk.
This isn’t to diss people that make the choice, but your quality of life will be worse, so yes I count that as those meat products being necessary, in spite of the environmental damage. I think there are better ways to fix that. Diversifying the meat industry, lowering food waste, etc. What seems more interesting at the moment is lab grown meat, since it has all the pros with none of the cons, except cost.
And I’m “pretty sure” that you are talking about what you WISH were true, not what you KNOW is true. Unfortunately, many people in this forum actually know what IS true, and you are so far off the mark, you would be humiliated if you actually grasped it.
You should check your facts about meat efficiency, soy milk and dairy… And don’t just ask ai to tell you what you want to hear…
I’m disgusted that you’d assume I use AI.
What does meat’s “efficiency” have to do with anything related to caloric intake? If I consume 1000 calories of meat or 1000 calories of vegetables, I’ve still consumed 1000 calories. I can only assume you mean I would have to eat a larger quantity of vegetables get the same amount of calories, and that’s not the argument you think it is when people by and large consume too many calories and don’t get enough micronutrients as it is.
I’m not even a full vegetarian, but even I know this is just self justification for what you want to do. One of my partners is a vegetarian, and I cut back on like 80-90% of my meat intake and my quality of life (like energy and general physical/mental wellbeing) is the same or better than it was a few years ago.
The only good points you made was about food waste and lab meat, the rest is just cope.
Sorry my thoughts got lost over multiple messages. I meant to get a similar amount of protein you need to consume more vegan food, especially calorie rich ones, most restaurants that I’ve seen when they have comparable items the vegan one had way more calories. I’d love to hear more of your experiences with this as someone who’s gone through that, do you find it harder to stay in shape?
Also thank you for actually engaging with me on this, the other person was very volatile.
Sure, but optimizing for protein isn’t the best methodology. I guess if you’re determined to max protein, meat is a better source. But if you want a better and more rounded diet, especially one low in saturated fats and high in fiber, the vegetarian (or even reduced meat) pathway is much better. Doubly so if you’re concerned about heart disease, colon cancer, or any of the side effects of eating too much protein.
deleted by creator
Animal ag consumes more food than it produces!! JFC people! We grow several times more plants than humanity can possibly eat, and then we refine it through the bodies of vulnerable individuals and murder them. THAT’S NOT FOOD, that atrocity.
Anyone who consumes animals and bitches about AI’s water use is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot – but for whom?
It is food, get off your high horse if you plan on convincing anyone to back you. Topics and opinions are more nuanced than you want and people can’t easily get boxed.
Yes I’m aware the food industry is one of the least efficient industries out there. No I don’t think pure abolition is realistic or useful, as the products that come out of it can’t be replaced, you can adjust your diet to get proteins and such from other places, but beans and nuts are going to rack up your calories a ton compared to meat.
And calling someone a useful idiot is bold while you’re taking the pressure off of the ai industry which is not producing something useful for people (unlike meat which in spite of the failings of the industry is still helpful*) to say “but what about this other thing?!”. We can deal with both, but one of those is definitely worse than the other and it’s the one that we have existed without for thousands of years.
So if I grind up your children and eat it, they become “just food” and you should get off your high horse. If my industry changes the climate and you burn and freeze, it’s “just food” and you should get over yourself. It’s like saying, “It’s just a joke, brah!” It’s a childish attempt to evade responsibility for the consequences of your choices.
Where are you even getting this?? This is bonkers.
If you are getting enough calories from whole food plants, you are necessarily getting enough protein. If you eat nothing but rice, and you are getting enough calories, you are necessarily getting enough protein. “Protein” is a bullshit marketing angle. You are a victim of marketing.
Plants are nutrient-dense and calorie-poor. This is what you want for health. Animal flesh is exactly the opposite, plus contains things that actually kill you. The more meat a human eats, the younger a human dies and the more major diseases a human experiences. Just google: “meat all cause mortality” and educate yourself A LITTLE TINY BIT.
The things you are saying are so utterly uninformed, but you’re so confidently incorrect. It’s maddening. We both know for certain that you have never researched animal ag. Why are you trying to advance arguments when you know you have never researched it? What is motivating this stupid, arrogant behaviour?
The worse one is animal ag, by orders of magnitude!! Fucking do some research. Animal ag produces more climate change effects than ALL TRANSPORTATION ON EARTH COMBINED. Data centers don’t even move the needle beside that. It’s wildly hypocritical to criticize people’s private AI use on the basis of water consumption while you consume animals. If you actually gave a shit about water use, you’d be looking to your own easily changed behaviour first. But this is just a conditioned response founded in ignorance. It’s piling on and superstition. As soon as the subject of AI leaves your mind, you stop giving a single shit about water usage.
Username checks out.
While this is name-calling (and the proverbial last refuge of a so-and-so) you’re not wrong. I wish I had the capacity to advocate effectively.
You might have heard of the so called “overview effect” reported by space travelers who have observed the Earth from a great enough distance that the entire planet is in view. It changes their psychological perspective. I don’t know if it’s a real thing, but I have experienced something analogous.
I grew up with the same social conditioning as everyone else, to see animals as means rather than ends, to disregard their experiences and suffering, to deny that they even capable of having those things. I committed thousands of grievous acts of unforgivable cruelty to individuals who all had the capacity to actually love me, the same as I love anyone else, but I didn’t care. It didn’t bother me, so I thought. In reality, I had a whole toolbox of psychological tricks that I used on myself to avoid perceiving this cruelty and violence. To avoid perceiving myself as a cruel and violent person, a bad person.
These self-serving beliefs about animals and the tools one uses to enforce and manage the cognitive dissonance are collectively called carnism. Through a series of difficult choices and radical honesty, slowly at first, and then in a great rush, I lost my carnism. I was finally able to see things as the are, at least in this respect. I saw the whole fucking thing. And I saw what I had done, in the very same moment that I lost all my defense mechanisms that protect me from what I have done.
I have to admit, much of my grace has gone out of me. Much of my respect for my fellow progressives, much of my sense of safety. I feel like a raw exposed nerve whenever it comes up, and it’s been ten years. But I also feel that I must never again make use of those tools carnism gave me to ignore reality, and that I don’t deserve to have comfort with the things that I have done. I have not yet learned to manage these feelings such that I can engage with abusers productively.
I think everyone should reject carnism, but realistically, having gone through it, I know that most people will never even attempt it. Reality is brutal and horrible. People need their lies just to get through it. I’m trying to accept that, but it is proving even harder.
We have had neither for more than a few decades. Animal ag as it exists today did not exist when I was born. There is several times more biomass in humans and farmed animals than all the wild land animals combined. This has not been going on for thousands of years, that is utterly uninformed and frankly amazingly unobservant.
You have no idea what you are talking about, but you’re soooo confident. It’s pointless to continue, you’re going to keep making shit up because you are unwilling to process the feelings that come up when you consider that you might be wrong. Which, I am sure you can appreciate, would put blood on your hands.
Like I said, if they can fix that problem, then I’m fine with it. The resources it currently consumes is the reason why I kind of detest 4K and 8K AI videos. But I also kind of detest 4K and 8K TVs and monitors. We don’t need that many god damn pixels. Unless you’re a bird of prey, 4K is a complete waste of electricity.
Lawns take up more water than all the datacenters. Golf courses take up more water. Get a fucking grip. You better not be complaining about water usage with the flesh of vulnerable individuals still stuck between your teeth because animal ag consumes an order of magnitude more water, emits more greenhouse gasses than all transportation combined, and gives NOTHING back but death and destruction.
Animal Ag gives us valuable food. Sure there are better alternatives out there but it literally gives us something we need to live.
And fucking golf?
Oh I’m well in agreement with that one. Huge waste of water for a sport that is almost always reserved for rich people to enjoy.
Keeps Trump away from the “launch nuclear missiles” button.
Animal ag consumes more food than it produces. It is a method for investors to refine cheap, plentiful, safe, and sustainable plant food into a harmful, addictive, expensive luxury product. Many of the costs are hidden from the consumer in the form of subsidies.
Western meat consumption has multiplied several fold in the last couple of generations. There is no “need” to that, there is only “want” and pure addiction.
To say it gives nothing back is simply a lie though. It literally provides one of the most important things people need. Food. Just because it’s an inefficient method does not mean it provides nothing.
It’s not merely inefficient, it has a negative efficiency; the more you do it, the less food you have. To produce meat, we have to feed animals. To feed a combined biomass that dwarfs all wild land animals on earth, we need to grow food with agriculture. Growing food to feed to animals and then consuming the meat results in a net loss of food as compared to just growing the food. Every step up the food chain represents enormous losses. Animal ag does not produce food. I know that is hard to accept but it’s a unescapable thermodynamic reality.
The reason animal ag has exploded so much over recent decades is that it allows industrialists to capitalize the vast surplus of food that is grown. More food is grown than humans alone can possibly eat. But capitalism demands constant growth, or it eats itself. Animal ag creates demand for this surplus food. It doesn’t benefit anyone except the industrialists who exploit both us and the animals. Even returning to 1950s levels of animal ag intensity would slash its footprint to a barely significant fraction of what it is now. It’s an absolute catastrophe and people are conditioned to completely tune it out.
We need food, but animal ag consumes more food than it produces. Grazing and other forms of “resource upcycling” cannot make up the massive difference.
deleted by creator
Well, that is debatable. For some its using Ai is a problem by definition, its not even about the result. A few issues: a) Ai is unethically trained on data without respecting the original license, b) using Ai (probably even paying for it) supports Ai companies, which in turn are causing the massive issues in the tech price increases.
This is like saying that smoking weed is unethical because of the murderous actions of the cartels who grow and distribute it. You’re problem with AI isn’t with the technology itself nor its use.
I’m not sure about the weed argument, can’t say anything about it. But first, my personal problem with Ai doesn’t matter to this disussion, as I was talking about what people could have an issue with, not about my personal problems. Secondly farming data without respecting the original license, not even linking to the source where it got from is in fact a problem with “its use”. That is an unsolved problem lot of people just ignore, which does not make it less of a problem (it makes it a bigger problem). And that is just a few issues I listed, not even talking about the problems of generated content. There are legitimate concerns using Ai, no matter how you frame it, some just choose to ignore it.
Okay. Then the problem that people, not you particularly, have with AI isn’t with the technology itself nor its use, but the methods by which the companies “grow and harvest it”, so to speak.
Which I don’t even think is true. People have just lost their minds over this. If a company unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data, we don’t say that there are legitimate concerns using books.
Off course we say its a legitimate concern if someone unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data… The point of scraping and stealing data without respecting its license, training their software with it and using it commercially (or even non commercially) without giving even credit and not respecting its original license?
No, its not just the methods. I am talking about deep problems with the technology, the methods how companies go with it, and then its usage from company and end user. Ai trained with those data and used makes it impossible to respect the original license, for the user. So in this case, the company using the Ai AND the user of the model violate licenses. Maybe. Maybe not, if the data allows it. But we don’t know and CANNOT check and know for sure, that’s the problem. Just because you don’t understand the issue or don’t care does not make it less of a problem.
As an example with software licenses like GPL requires that any derivative works using this source code (such as Linux or whatever my personal program is licensed under GPL) has to be GPL licenses (Open Source) too. That is not debatable. That is how this license work. Now the Ai can be trained on this data, using the source code, and then? See where this goes? That is only one generalized example.
We have a legitimate concern with that particular book, not all books.
The difference is, you know which book you have a concern with. Ai does not operate like that. With using Ai, you don’t know which book the data is from and it is not possible for the Ai to tell you that. There are conceptional problems with Ai. Your book example does not work here, because that works differently than Ai.
We would be having a problem with it if every book was regurgitated stolen data. That’s kind of the core of how all of these generative AI models work to the point that their creators have argued in court that they wouldn’t exist at all if they weren’t allowed to steal all the training data.
It can be trained on the exact same free data that we can be trained on. Just like us, it doesn’t have to bypass paywalls. I think they’re arguing that if I can look at the Wikipedia and tell you that an avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers, then AI should be allowed to as well.
I think you need to read up on the difference between “free as in beer” and “free” licenses. Everything on Wikipedia is copyrighted under a GNU license, which requires any use to give credit AND ALSO be licensed under the GPL. Which AI models do not (and cannot) do.
Also, just conceptually… We built a giant, free library (and museum and art gallery and etc.) on the internet, and these parasitic AI companies came in and built a fence around it and started charging admission while massively polluting our cities and towns and gobbling up resources at an incredible rate. Then, even if you pay them their admission fees, the information you get is at best 70% correct. Why would anyone celebrate that?
This is misleading and dishonest. Its not just looking up a single free information. Ai does more than that. Ai will not only scrape and copy the entire article, it will also scrape and copy the entirety of Wikipedia. There are licenses attacked to the Wikipedia article we have to follow to, if we scrape and use it for other purposes. It will also scrape the entire web. That is not the same as just looking up an Avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers.
This is weirdly accusatory. I’m not sitting here in a black cape and stovepipe top hat, twirling my mustache.
If this is the way we’re going to look at it then I guess we have to throw this technology out the window. It seems like a bad idea to do that though.
I mostly agree, but even if LLMs were 100% correct all the time (they’re not), there are still some pretty serious ethical issues surrounding it. It is up to each person to decide if they find that acceptable or not.
I disagree with the moral panic about AI stealing things. They’re not Xerox machines. It does exactly what humans do except faster. Before AI, this YouTuber was reading a bunch of stuff, “stealing” things from it, and putting it back together in a different way, just like AI, except he actually understands what he’s reading.
I am concerned though about the resources it uses. But I don’t see that as an ethical issue. That’s more of a logistical issue. If they can make AI that doesn’t drink up Lake Michigan and doesn’t make the electrical grid scream, then more power to it.
My biggest concern whether people are for it or against it is that they don’t think it’s Skynet, or Data from Star Trek. It’s just a big dumb machine, a gigantic MENACE matchbox computer.
My complaint is at least before the individual stealing the idea and recombining it was the one getting paid.
Now that’s just a SaaS that benefits a handful of overvalued superscalers. They get to sit on their horde of data and charge for access.
This makes it sound like it can do anything humans can do, but you’re actually wrong in a lot of different ways. Generative AI is a reconstruction machine. It takes the things it “knows” (because they don’t know anything, they’re just lots and lots of coefficients in giant matrices), and attempt to reconstruct from an incomplete data point.
They are actually a lot closer to Xerox machines than they are to humans. If you train gen AI on one thing, it will only know that one thing, and it will only recreate that one thing. It could never do more than that. Humans just do not fundamentally work that way. Like, if you want to say most stories are recombinations of other stories, fine, but that is wrong. There is an origin that was created by a human. Not everything is stolen.
There are many, many issues with gen AI, from the resources it uses, to its use in surveillance, to the fact that it is still wrong on fundamental ideas. It’s just kinda shit technology and the people that think it is awesome are usually the dumbest fucking morons I have ever met, and that is terrifying. Man, just learning the math and science behind it and how it works should be the bar, but none of them know how it fucking works or why it cannot improve without using more and more resources.
They literally stole the training data. Everything after that is fruit of the poisonous tree.
According to the article, he used terminology associated with LLMs when answering a question.
He denies that he was reading an AI generated answer and instead says that he just uses LLMs too much and it bled over into his speech.
There are ethical problems about using the fruits of stolen labour to enrich yourself.
Uhhh