AI needs to stop

[scytale@lemm.ee]

I was referring mostly about security conferences. Last year almost every vendor was selling API security products. Now it’s all AI infused products.

[scytale@lemm.ee]

Have you been to any appsec conferences last year? It was all API security. This year it was all AI-leveraged security products.

[woodscientist@lemmy.world]

At this point, I'm full on ready to make "though shall not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind" global international law and a religious commandment. At least that way, we can burn all AI grifters as witches!

[daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

Get into self hosting.

Smart everything without subscriptions. And with you in control.

[meliaesc@lemmy.world]

Relevant ad.

[mm_maybe@sh.itjust.works]

Yes, you're absolutely right. The first StarCoder model demonstrated that it is in fact possible to train a useful LLM exclusively on permissively licensed material, contrary to OpenAI's claims. Unfortunately, the main concerns of the leading voices in AI ethics at the time this stuff began to really heat up were a) "alignment" with human values / takeover of super-intelligent AI and b) bias against certain groups of humans (which I characterize as differential alignment, i.e. with some humans but not others). The latter group has since published some work criticizing genAI from a copyright and data dignity standpoint, but their absolute position against the technology in general leaves no room for re-visiting the premise that use of non-permissively licensed work is inevitable. (Incidentally they also hate classification AI as a whole; thus smearing AI detection technology which could help on all fronts of this battle. Here again it's obviously a matter of responsible deployment; the kind of classification AI that UHC deployed to reject valid health insurance claims, or the target selection AI that IDF has used, are examples of obviously unethical applications in which copyright infringement would be irrelevant.)

[ricecake@sh.itjust.works]

Wouldn't you know, AI has also been algorithmically based and around since the 1950s?

AI as a field isn't just neural networks and GPUs invented in the last decade. It includes a lot of stuff we now consider pretty commonplace.
Using some simple variables to measure a few continuous values to make decisions about soap quantity, water to dispense, and the number of rinse cycles is pretty much a text book example of classical AI. Environmental perception and changing actions to maximize the quality of its task outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

[mm_maybe@sh.itjust.works]

I mean you're technically correct from a copyright standpoint since it would be easier to claim fair use for non-commercial research purposes. And bots built for one's own amusement with open-source tools are way less concerning to me than black-box commercial chatbots that purport to contain "facts" when they are known to contain errors and biases, not to mention vast amounts of stolen copyrighted creative work. But even non-commercial generative AI has to reckon with it's failure to recognize "data dignity", that is, the right of individuals to control how data generated by their online activities is shared and used... virtually nobody except maybe Jaron Lanier and the folks behind Brave are even thinking about this issue, but it's at the core of why people really hate AI.

[mm_maybe@sh.itjust.works]

Honestly I find this feature of my washer/dryer super-useful because it reminds me to turn the stuff over instead of forgetting and letting it sit in the washer getting midlewy

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

Natural unintelligence

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

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

[dragonsinaroom@lemmy.world]

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

[uis@lemm.ee]

Train, backpropogate, optimize.

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

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.

[uis@lemm.ee]

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@lemmy.world]

Was this done by AI?

[halosheep@lemm.ee]

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

Complaining over nothing.

[ricecake@sh.itjust.works]

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.

[entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

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

[uis@lemm.ee]

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.