I hate generative ai. It is monopolized yet isn’t profitable, made from stolen content, and harms the planet.

deleted by creator

To answer your questions in order:

• Because it’s being used in unethical ways.

• Yes.

• Yes.

• AI is a field of Computer Science dealing with machine learning and decision-making.

• Some of them, no doubt.

• No, because any coherent conception of free will in a deterministic universe must leave room for fully detrministic decision-making.

Is this a new account asking 500 questions in a single post? Are you AI? What even are you? Why is living suffering?

History loves to repeat itself.

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

I don’t actually dislike AI. I dislike that corporations view it as a way to stop hiring humans entirely. I dislike that it’s being used to create massive amounts of disinformation. I dislike that corporate AI is all about massive datacenters that are ruining ecosystems and towns.

I think AI when deployed properly (especially when it’s used for a specific specialized purpose instead of general purpose), it can be a great tool. The hype of it taking over is only because rich people can’t stand paying a dime to a human, they want a slave that never sleeps or asks for a raise. There’s open source models you can run locally that don’t take a datacenter. I dunno, it seems like it’s useful (not as useful as claimed) but it’s being exploited mostly by the worst people possible.

I dislike that I have to validate everything I use it for, and for most functions, it ends up being exceedingly inconvenient but I’m still expected to use it because MS demands the client use data to train it into being less stupid. It just makes shit up. It gets things wrong. It ignores instructions. It is manipulative. This happens with such regularity that LLM marketers made up a new term so they wouldn’t have to call it buggy. (“Hallucinations”.)

Also hate what an environmental abomination it is and that it’s driving people to suicide.

There are lots of reasons to hate AI. It’s bad product.

What I dislike is that the term AI has gone the way of terms like “hacking” and “the web” — I’ve been working with AI for over two decades, and suddenly LLMs are getting VC funding that’s enough to buy up the world’s memory and CPUs, use up entire communities’ water supplies, and set back responsible use of fossil fuels by decades. And now we’re being told to use these massive models or be replaced by them.

In other words, the problem isn’t AI, it’s people (as usual).

I don’t dislike ai. I think it is of way less value though than many people think it is. Ethical use of ai would be to rigorously go through and identify a core set of commands for all general ai unfortnuately I think even the best group would get caught up in rediculous ideas around violence and pornography rather than concentration on the important priorities of individual rights and privacy. There is no destroying the internet or ai without bringing the who human populations tech level below what makes it all possible. AI for most people mean llms but the capabilities for llms are different now than when they started. No AI proponents don’t deserve jail time.

I don’t dislike AI. I dislike capitalist morons snake oil salesman-ing AI.

Yes, there is obviously a great great ethical use of AI. The utopian future is a publicly owned AI system, where all jobs are automated, where all labor is done practically without scarcity at superhuman competency levels. Humans sit on their front porch playing the cello, knitting, or perhaps just fucking. Any sort of progress necessitates the creation of AI in our day and age.

The definition of AI depends a lot on context. Are we talking philosophically? Well, that’s a rabbit hole I don’t want to get into at all right now. Technically? Well, here’s how I’d go about it:

“Intelligent systems are those that have a set terminal goal, and continually attempt to get closer to achieving their terminal goal, by refining each attempt by learning from past experiences interacting with their environment.”

So if we have to look at this as a function, AI would have these qualities: Input params and output params. AI is the function in the middle. AI takes input params and tries to correctly manipulate them to form output params. It uses results to change its model to be “more correct” in the future. So by this definition, your dumb 20 year old computer vision models would still qualify as AI.

I don’t have an issue with the technology. It’s the business IPOing and getting rich off of stolen work that bothers me. It’s not even the stealing that bothers me, it just the double standard that if single person did what these companies are doing they would be sued into oblivion. Also, I’m going to be really pissed if my tax dollars have to go to AI bail outs when the bubble pops.

Ai isn’t the problem.

It’s the system it’s being created in, combined with the sheer nastiness of the companies and executives in charge.

It’s a tool. And it’s an inevitable tool if one accepts that software progress be allowed to progress at all. Only way to prevent the kind of ai people are currently mad at would be to outright ban research and experimentation in that field. While that’s a valid choice for a society to make, it comes with its own problems.

It could have been done “ethically”. It wasn’t, and that makes all future profits from the technology tainted until and unless the learning aspect is redone from the ground up.

That being said, it’s kinda like eating soy products. The massive industry behind production of soy products is run by, and feeds profits to, some of the worst humanity has to offer. But it isn’t going anywhere, and we also aren’t staging a revolution to reclaim the means of production, so every soy product not grown by one’s self is tainted by that rot.

You can use whatever industry you want as an example, it doesn’t have to be soy, it’s just that soy brings a lot of benefits in the same way that the technology behind the current wave of ai and generative software does. And, in a similar way, the problems come from implementation and systemic ill rather than the thing itself.

Again, similarly, it’s plain pointless to totally boycott the technology. It’s not going away without a revolution. Screaming at this single symptom of a systemic disease is a waste of energy.

If one decides not to make use of it, that’s fine. But it’s also fine if someone does. I would, however, encourage anyone and everyone to choose human directly generated products whenever possible, because that is an effective way to mitigate some of the problems the implementation has.