I hate it with a burning passion. It causes irreparable climate harm, including self-hosted models (consider where they’re trained); it infringes copyright (and they’re destroying rare books to feed it‽‽‽); it’s causing psychosis in some people, leading them to harm themselves and others; and it’s destroying a lot of people’s critical thinking skills (which I think is the goal: commodify intelligence, though maybe it’s to replace the working-class itself).
Sorry for the massive block of text lol, I just really, really don’t like it.
Oh, also (very anectdotal), it seems that on the Venn diagram of anti-fascist and anti-“AI”, the anti-“AI” circle is almost entirely contained within the anti-fascist circle. Just an observation.
Disclaimer: machine learning is not the same as “AI” (LLMs, presented as beings capable of thought). I think ML has a lot of interesting applications, and I’m actually rather fascinated by it.
machine learning is not the same as “AI” (LLMs, presented as beings capable of thought)
(insert nerd face) LLMs are a kind of machine learning algorithm. AI is actually a superset of ML, in fact pretty much all computer programs count as AI. (a lot of old computer science departments were once called AI research departments in stead)
The phrase “AI”, as promoted by tech bros, however, should be considered seperately to the correct definition: I agree that software is generally harmful when presented this way by its creators.
This kind seems like it’s basically what I said? I think there’s too much ambiguity around the term “artifical intelligence”. When I said “AI” (with quotation marks), I was referring to the tech bros’ “gen-AI”.
I disagree, however, with the idea that artificial intelligence is superset of machine-learning. While all computers were once considered a form of artificial intelligence, the same cannot be said now.
The idea of artificial intelligence is quite nebulous. I can’t recall the source, but I’ve heard that even the loom was once considered to be akin to the human brain. Honestly, I think humans just like comparing new technology to our brains, and we’ll eventually move past referring to machine-learning as artificial intelligence.
(machine learning) is not the same as (“AI” (LLMs, presented as beings capable of thought))
(aka LLMs aren’t ML) rather than
machine learning is not the same as “AI” e.g. (LLMs, presented as beings capable of thought)
(aka LLMs are ML, and when presented as a replacement for humans they are AI)
Either way, I believe there is some value in comparing even simple decision making technology to the human brain. After all, we are capable of making those sorts of decisions as well. Tbf I may be biased by my internal mental model of coding, where I imagine describing a set of steps, relations, abstractions, etc to an entity with an extremely direct manner of interpretation.
My personal moral of (seemingly malicious) language ambiguity is to avoid the term AI altogether.
My personal moral of (seemingly malicious) language ambiguity is to avoid the term AI altogether.
Oh, it’s definitely malicious.
Tbf I may be biased by my internal mental model of coding, where I imagine describing a set of steps, relations, abstractions, etc to an entity with an extremely direct manner of interpretation.
Interesting. I’m unsure what my internal mental model of coding is. I guess I just kinda… feel the code? I wonder if it’s because I’m autistic, but things like programming and mathematics feel very natural and intuitive to me. They’re logical, predictable, and rule-based.
Thanks for the discussion!
Likewise: this has been such a pleasant internet interaction; a rare occurance.
I hate it with a burning passion. It causes irreparable climate harm, including self-hosted models (consider where they’re trained); it infringes copyright (and they’re destroying rare books to feed it‽‽‽); it’s causing psychosis in some people, leading them to harm themselves and others; and it’s destroying a lot of people’s critical thinking skills (which I think is the goal: commodify intelligence, though maybe it’s to replace the working-class itself).
Sorry for the massive block of text lol, I just really, really don’t like it.
Oh, also (very anectdotal), it seems that on the Venn diagram of anti-fascist and anti-“AI”, the anti-“AI” circle is almost entirely contained within the anti-fascist circle. Just an observation.
Disclaimer: machine learning is not the same as “AI” (LLMs, presented as beings capable of thought). I think ML has a lot of interesting applications, and I’m actually rather fascinated by it.
(insert nerd face) LLMs are a kind of machine learning algorithm. AI is actually a superset of ML, in fact pretty much all computer programs count as AI. (a lot of old computer science departments were once called AI research departments in stead)
The phrase “AI”, as promoted by tech bros, however, should be considered seperately to the correct definition: I agree that software is generally harmful when presented this way by its creators.
This kind seems like it’s basically what I said? I think there’s too much ambiguity around the term “artifical intelligence”. When I said “AI” (with quotation marks), I was referring to the tech bros’ “gen-AI”.
I disagree, however, with the idea that artificial intelligence is superset of machine-learning. While all computers were once considered a form of artificial intelligence, the same cannot be said now.
The idea of artificial intelligence is quite nebulous. I can’t recall the source, but I’ve heard that even the loom was once considered to be akin to the human brain. Honestly, I think humans just like comparing new technology to our brains, and we’ll eventually move past referring to machine-learning as artificial intelligence.
*adjusts glasses*
My mistake, I associated what you said as
(aka LLMs aren’t ML) rather than
(aka LLMs are ML, and when presented as a replacement for humans they are AI)
Either way, I believe there is some value in comparing even simple decision making technology to the human brain. After all, we are capable of making those sorts of decisions as well. Tbf I may be biased by my internal mental model of coding, where I imagine describing a set of steps, relations, abstractions, etc to an entity with an extremely direct manner of interpretation.
My personal moral of (seemingly malicious) language ambiguity is to avoid the term AI altogether.
Thanks for the discussion!
Oh, it’s definitely malicious.
Interesting. I’m unsure what my internal mental model of coding is. I guess I just kinda… feel the code? I wonder if it’s because I’m autistic, but things like programming and mathematics feel very natural and intuitive to me. They’re logical, predictable, and rule-based.
Likewise: this has been such a pleasant internet interaction; a rare occurance.