-34
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by WaffleWarrior@lemmy.zip to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

My understanding is most of you are anti AI? My only question is....why? It is the coolest invention since the Internet and it is remarkable how close it can resemble actual consciousness. No joke the AI in sci fi movies is worse than what we actually have in many ways!

Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely anti "AI baked into my operating system and cell phone so that it can monitor me and sell me crap". If that's what being Anti AI is.....to that I say Amen.

But simply not liking a privacy conscious experience or utilization of AI at all? I'm not getting it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Are_Euclidding_Me@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago

At this rate of adoption, in a few years it will be as normal as having a mobile phone (they weren't around only 20 years ago)

First, mobile phones were extremely common in 2005 (20 years ago), even I had one, and I was literally a child.

Second, and this is the part I'm actually curious about: I wonder if there were people in the 80s and 90s (when mobile phones were actually rare, but becoming more common) who felt the same pure, visceral disgust for them that I feel for LLMs. I sort of suspect not, but I could be wrong, and I'd be curious to read anti-cell phone writing from that era, to see what people were worried about and whether those worries are in any way the same as the current worries I (and many others) have about LLMs.

[-] JumpyWombat@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

First, mobile phones were extremely common in 2005 (20 years ago), even I had one, and I was literally a child.

My mistake, I meant modern smartphones.

I wonder if there were people in the 80s and 90s (when mobile phones were actually rare, but becoming more common) who felt the same pure, visceral disgust for them that I feel for LLMs.

Disgust no, but it was something for people in business, so non-business people could be ridiculed. Also consider that the equivalent of social media was the pub at the corner so those who may have had a “visceral disgust” didn’t have a chance to find others with their extreme vision. People were more moderate on average without the modern internet bubbles in which any crazy idea finds a club of supporters.

[-] Are_Euclidding_Me@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago

So you think that the lack of disgust over cell phones (or smartphones, I'm happy to talk about them instead, since that's what you meant) had more to do with the lack of social media than anything inherent in the technology. I don't know that I agree, really. It's possible, I suppose, but I don't really use social media now (except posting on Hexbear), and I would say my disgust with LLMs has more to do with my understanding of the mathematics behind them and my experiences using them, rather than listening to what other people are saying about them.

[-] JumpyWombat@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

I think that today some people live in an internet bubble reinforcing each other’s ideas without anyone saying “maybe you are exaggerating”. It’s true in general, not just for AI. When I talk with RL friends who are not such “internet nerds” as me, their views are much less black and white than mine… and I’m not remotely as black and white as some people here.

Back in topic, would you be that negative if AI’s issues were addressed and solved? Because they will be addressed and solved. It’s a basic business need to minimise costs (energy, water) and solve legal disputes (copyright).

[-] Are_Euclidding_Me@hexbear.net 1 points 3 days ago

Back in topic, would you be that negative if AI’s issues were addressed and solved? Because they will be addressed and solved. It’s a basic business need to minimise costs (energy, water) and solve legal disputes (copyright).

The issues with LLMs will never be solved. The environmental damage and copyright issues will persist as long as capitalism does. And those aren't even my main issues. These fucking things are marketed as thinking machines that can reason and help people work through problems, but they are fundamentally incapable of that. They hallucinate and spout nonsense and it's not a matter of "oh, just train them better, they'll eventually be worth using", there are fundamental mathematical reasons that these things spout so much nonsense, and no amount of high quality training data will ever fix it.

this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
-34 points (35.1% liked)

Asklemmy

49762 readers
570 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS