AI needs to stop

[email protected]

Natural unintelligence

[email protected]

This is why I only invest in things I actually want to use myself.

[email protected]

But the companies must posture that their on the cutting edge! Even if they only put the letters "AI" on the box of a rice cooker without changing the rice cooker

[email protected]

Train, backpropogate, optimize.

[email protected]

They would probably detect that and limit your usage.

Even not using their service still leaves its pollution. IMO the best way to fight back is to support higher pollution taxes. Crypto, AI, whatever's next - it should be technology agnostic.

[email protected]

criticizing genAI from a copyright

There is russian phrase "fight of beaver and donkey", which loosely means fight of two shits. Copyright is cancer and capitalist abuse of genAI is cancer.

GladiusB

Was this done by AI?

[email protected]

I think I see people complaining about ai more than I see ai actually in anything other than promo material.

Complaining over nothing.

[email protected]

Well that's sort of my point. It's an algorithm, or set of techniques for making one, that's been around since the 50s. Being around for a long time doesn't make it not part of the field of AI.

The field of AI has a long history of the fruits of their research being called "not AI" as soon as it finds practical applications.

The system is taking measurements of its problem area. It's then altering its behavior to produce a more optimal result given those measurements. That's what intelligence is. It's far from the most clever intelligence, and it doesn't engage in reason or have the ability to learn.

In the last iteration of the AI marketing cycle companies explicitly stopped calling things AI even when it was. Much like how in the next 5-10 years or so we won't label anything from this generation "AI", even if something is explicitly using the techniques in a manner that makes sense.

[email protected]

Do you remember the original touch screens? They were pressure based and suuuuuuuuucked.

[email protected]

You are overexaggerating under assumption that there will exist social and economic system based on greed and death threats, which sounds very unreali-- Right, capitalism.

[email protected]

You can't see a benefit to a washing machine that can wash clothes without you needing to figure out how much soap to add or how many rinse cycles it needs?

I genuinely pity anyone so influenced by marketing that they can't look at what a feature actually does before deciding they hate it.

[email protected]

It isn't an oval, it is ellipse.

[email protected]

Yes! So much better statement.

[email protected]

Good for you. You might also be interested in this tool called a "washtub" that lets you do everything exactly how you want, without needing to trust a computer to interpret the positions of fancy dials and figure out how much to agitate your socks.

[email protected]

Anti-AI has become a weird crowd mentality cult.

[email protected]

No, it couldn’t. That’s pure tech bro logic without any basis whatsoever in reality.

The machines already have these sensors. There’s simply nothing for “intelligence” to contribute to the process. It’s not enough for you to point to the presence of various sensors and claim it could do something with them when in reality this is already a solved problem. Additionally, the hypothetical AI-equipped machine itself will also be worse, using significantly more energy and being less reliable.

I say hypothetical, because the specific LG machine we’re talking about doesn’t even actually have any AI component. Yes I am aware of the difference between generative and analytical models; it has neither. Just normal sensors and algorithms that all modern washing machines have had for years. They threw the “AI” language on it to market it to people. You know, like a scam. Because the delightful thing about “AI” is you don’t need to provide any benefit to your marks, their imagination will do the work for you

[email protected]

The Imperium of Man got this right.

[email protected]

Everything else aside, you need to clean your washing machine. Cloths shouldn't be smelling like mildew after less than a day in it.

Modern washing machines are also pretty quiet.

[email protected]

You had me in the first half, but then you lost me in the second half with the false claim of stolen material. There is no such material inside the AI, just the ideas that can be extracted from such material. People hate their ideas being taken by others but this happens all the time, even by the people that claim that is why they do not like AI. It's somewhat of a rite of passage for your work to become so liked by others that they take your ideas, and every artist or creative person at that point has to swallow the tough pill that their ideas are not their property, even when their way of expressing them is. The alternative would be dystopian since the same companies we all hate, that abuse current genAI as well, would hold the rights to every idea possible.

If you publicize your work, your ideas being ripped from it is an inevitability. People learn from the works they see and some of them try to understand why certain works are so interesting, extracting the ideas that do just that, and that is what AI does as well. If you hate AI for this, you must also hate pretty much all creative people for doing the exact same thing. There's even a famous quote for that before AI was even a thing. "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

I'd argue that the abuse of AI to (consider) replacing artists and other working creatives, spreading of misinformation, simplifying of scams, wasting of resources by using AI where it doesn't belong, and any other unethical means to use AI are far worse than it tapping into the same freedom we all already enjoy. People actually using AI for good means will not be pumping out cheap AI slop, but are instead weaving it into their process to the point it is not even clear AI was used at the end. They are not the same and should not be confused.