view the rest of the comments
Firefox
The latest news and developments on Firefox and Mozilla, a global non-profit that strives to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the web.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Related
- Firefox Customs: !FirefoxCSS@fedia.io
- Thunderbird: !Thunderbird@fedia.io
Rules
While we are not an official Mozilla community, we have adopted the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines as far as it can be applied to a bin.
Rules
-
Always be civil and respectful
Don't be toxic, hostile, or a troll, especially towards Mozilla employees. This includes gratuitous use of profanity. -
Don't be a bigot
No form of bigotry will be tolerated. -
Don't post security compromising suggestions
If you do, include an obvious and clear warning. -
Don't post conspiracy theories
Especially ones about nefarious intentions or funding. If you're concerned: Ask. Please don’t fuel conspiracy thinking here. Don’t try to spread FUD, especially against reliable privacy-enhancing software. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show credible sources. -
Don't accuse others of shilling
Send honest concerns to the moderators and/or admins, and we will investigate. -
Do not remove your help posts after they receive replies
Half the point of asking questions in a public sub is so that everyone can benefit from the answers—which is impossible if you go deleting everything behind yourself once you've gotten yours.
@null_dot Even if that were true, that doesn't consider the fact that generative-AI is a money black hole and literally the only company type profiting from this bubble are ones like Nvidia that are producing the graphics cards these models use. Generative-AI is not and will not be profitable; Mozilla is losing money by shilling this tech.
So even if you do attract a high volume of users by shoving in generative-AI (which I DOUBT), I doubt that would offset the money burning from running these models. It's not a smart business move, either for users who despise the tech or users who love it. It's a lose-lose.
Sorry, this is objectively false.
Gen AI is not presently profitable due to the rate of innovation. Developing a new inference model needs a lot of cash for salaries. Populating that new model needs a lot of compute.
Once you have the model, the cost to query it is minimal. You can literally buy a $500 graphics card and download a model and have it perform useful tasks.
The difficulty is, if it costs you $n billion to develop whatever model today, and it's obsolete in 1 year, then thats a $n billion hit to your profitability this year. If innovation slowed down so maybe a model is still competitive after 10 years, then your costs have reduced by 90%.
There's loads of things to dislike about AI, but the profitability thing is borne of misunderstanding on your part.
The arguments against AI you're looking for are:
I would take issue with your implicit suggestion that humanity becoming slaves to AI would be fine if the machines doing it weren't under the direct central control of their elite owners. The gradual replacement of human thinking with rapid low-cost mediocre pseudo-thought is a problem for more than just the worlds of media and art, no matter who's nominally the owner of the process.
No, we're not going to be slaves to a general AI, but it will grant unlimited power to whoever controls it.
There's a large ecosystem of "open" models available to download and develop with. Sadly IMO this open movement is too small and too slow to assail the likes of openAI, but it's something.
An open model available to everyone doesn't concentrate power.
What I'm thinking of depends more on the training methods and data used. But I guess it's too early to say much about what strong AI would be like, we're not really close to it yet.
I mean some of it might turn out to be "profitable" in the narrow sense of earning financial returns for somebody, but that does not mean it will a profitable endeavour for humanity in general.