• 4am@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 hours ago

    And that’s why no one is opposed to those.

    You didn’t pirate the collective works of humanity to train on, while under a society that requires intellectual property rights to ensure those creators are compensated, in order to undercut them twice (once to train and once to replace them)

    You didn’t pollute the sky, dry the soil, bulldoze people’s homes to make your chessbot.

    You didn’t corner the market on components to brute force the solution to declare yourself computer god, where everyone must come to you for compute.

    Gen AI seeks to replace humans and it’s not even sentient. I don’t give a single fuck how useful a fancy algorithm is, it’s not ok with me if it’s designed to destroy my life.

    • architect@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      No but we did all that for Taylor swift and Walmart. Hopefully you don’t do anything with any major brands at all.

    • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Well do the work and call it for what it is, not just “AI”.

      Generative AI.

      LLM

      Is it truly that hard?

      I mean you seem to want to, and thus we can have a discussion about it, which I favour instead of having people just being generally angry it seems.

      The day when it doesn’t crush the environment, should we use gen AI to help us in our daily lives? Or should we not? Is there something good in it? Or isn’t it? I’d love seing constructive discussions but they just get globbed by people thinking with their gut it seems. Like if you don’t hate “AI” then you’re pro genocide.

      Sorry for the rant!