1057
Saint Luigi
(i.imgur.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
1057 points (92.7% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
27206 readers
2534 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If you think it has nothing to do with the working class struggle you need to go back to square one and begin again. There isn't much that isn't impacted by the rise of AI.
I wont take lessons of primitivists, sorry.
People against technological advancements are against the progress of the working class.
The only chance for people to live good lives is to delegate a great amount of work to the machines. That's just it.
If you think that primitivism is the answer and got fooled by the anti-AI movement you should be going back to square one. Start reading the basics until you learn that technological progress is not the problem, human greediness and capitalism is.
You're tilting at windmills. It's not about rejecting technological advancement. It's about ensuring its fairness and accessability.
Yes, technology can be (and is) used for social good. It can also be (and is) used to opress and supress. What's more both dynamics are happening at the same time. The world isn't black-and-white. The human condition is complex.
That's exactly my point.
AI is just another technology. If some corporation does bad things with it is just bad. If some people do good things with it then is good.
But people charge at AI just because itself. They are against the technology. Not the corporations using it.
I have been given the example "But UH is using AI to deny medical treatment". What if instead of AI they would have used a Java application? They would be against Java? No, because that argument is not rational.
They are just against AI because etsy artists who made easy money doing porn commission got their hustle broken by AI doing a better job for free. That's just how the anti-AI movement somehow got mixed in some leftist circles, because etsy artists are too influential in those circles. And their complain got blown out of proportions.
No one is really talking about AI as inherently bad. It's current implementation is impossible to separate from consolidated ownership by big tech and environmental rape in the name of delivering a technology that has no clear use case to the end consumer yet.
Just because people don't want unpack all of that nuance for pedants like you doesn't mean it isn't there.
Until AI means something different than the transgressive genAI integration and resource hoarding of big Tech - indeed until AI is no longer synonymous with Big Tech, then all of this wretched handwringing you're engaging in over the distinction between the two will continue to be useless, meaningless, and fucking annoying.
Spend your time on something useful. Would you like a new prompt?
They actually are though.
Environmental rape. Fun meaningless term, when having Photoshop open for hours is more environmentally damaging that creating the equivalent with Stable Diffusion.
You cannot unpack any nuance because you are intellectually incapable of doing so. As you only seem to follow the latest trend for your favourite influencer, without actually making any real analysis of what you are saying or writing. The "funny meaningless terminology" you used is more than enough indicator to me that behind those words there are not any thoughts.
I'm not big tech and I use AI, in a computer with a top 40W consumption. So try again cave boy. Try tell me how I'm "raping" earth with that use of AI.
Sorry for all the names thrown in this post, but you got it coming.
I hope that if you hate AI because it's overly and needlessly used by big tech everywhere you at least would have the decency of hating JavaScript too.
Seems like you're prescribing a lot of opinions to the people you're replying to. But if you go back and read what they wrote carefully you should see that your deductions and assumptions about what they think don't really stand the test of reason and semantics. Especially given how much of a tech-focused forum this is. Every third post is about Linux - so realistically what are the chances that you are enaging with primitivists on here?
Linux is not a "scary nee technology". It has been around forever.
Try to look for a positive view on any technology that has been blooming in the last 5-10 years instead. You'll find few. At least I find few.
For instance, self driving cars are also hated. Digital currency instead of cash (not talking about cryptocurrency, just things like digital euro, or digital yuan). Any form of digitalization of anything that wasn't digital until the last 5 years seems to be hated.
Welp, even smartphones seems to be hated. The other day I stumbled into a post where a lot of people said that they preferred old fliphones and where considering getting one instead of a smartphone.
Technobros used as derogatory term. Hell, even Luigi was being called out here for being a "technobro".
Primitivism is on the rise. I wish it wasn't, but it is.
If you think that what is being called "AI" right now is actually a useful tool for the working class when big corpo dumbasses are selling it as a replacement for workers: You're fucking delusional
Ah. Here we are. The Schrodinger AI.
People are now behaving like MAGA with the immigrants. At the same same time too bad to do anything useful and also stealing everyone's jobs.
Not surprised that two identical ways of thinking end up with the same arguments.
At the end, irrational thinkers are all just the same.
Except anyone with a fucking brain who has been paying attention can see that actually happening with AI. It's utter garbage that barely works, and it has been used to replace actual people or other tools that do work.
This isn't about being against the advancement of technology. The technology itself fucking sucks. We can do better.
Anyone with a brain know that anti-AI movement started because etsy artists doing porn commissions for a living got replaced, because AI can do a better job on that for free.
And because those etsy artists are incredibly influential in some circles the anti-AI feeling got blown out of proportions.
But making wanna-be entrepreneurs the backbone of the workers movement is not moving the working class anywhere.
The places where I have used the technology works just fine if you know how to use it. For programming it's incredibly more efficient that going search to stack overflow or github. And to do refractors of your code it can save a lot of time.
In my spare time I also use AI for image recognition as part of a self-hosted security system. And works far better that any other solution.
I can actively choose to use the technology or no. I choose to use it because it makes my job easier. Simple as that.
Only Etsy artists, huh?
You really haven't paid attention or you're brainless.
We got it boys. Let's ban tractors because they took away the job of millions of farmers. That would make the world a better place to live, I'm sure.
I think the core issue here is that, so far, AI has only taken away jobs that people want. People want to be artists, writers, and even programmers, and those are the only industries to be disrupted by AI thus far. If AI were to reduce society's need for manual or emotional labor, I think you would see far less reluctance to accept it. Also, the self-diving car thing, from the outside, just looks to be a matter of public safety. I think most people would agree that cars will be able to safely drive themselves eventually, but the ones currently on the road feel underbaked and rushed along by a greedy cabal of tech industrialists.
How many artists jobs do you think that the introduction of photoshop or digital art took? Better, how many artists jobs do you think that photography took. Before anyone wanting to preserve an image of anything had to pay massive money to an artists to paint it. Then some guy invented a machine that making one click can automatically make a image of anything. Advancement of technology be like that.
Same with coding, there used to be a job that was sewing cables to create computer programs. Create the simplest of the programs was a job for maybe hundreds of people. Introduction of better programming languages, techniques an tech in general has made that a program that used to take hundreds of jobs now could be done by a single person. AI programming tools are just another step in that direction. And not even a massively large one (I think C destroyed far more jobs than AI).
You didn't really respond to the core idea of my comment, which is that AI isn't doing anything to help us achieve the things that we would actually want it to. And what about the safety concerns around current-gen self-driving vehicles? It's easy to call everyone primitivists if you refuse to acknowledge their legitimate points.
It has helped me with coding. Coding might be fun. But also incredibly tedious and frustrating. And it's a job people in general don't want to do in most cases. Hobby coding is not the same as having to code for a corporation. If AI helps taking away hours from those jobs it's a society success.
Other field where it could be relevant is phone operators. One of the most universally hated jobs. I had to work as a phone operator for a few years and everyday I wish my job could be done by an AI. And I think it actually could be the case. What I did could be 100% done by an AI. Just to spare workers the suffering of having to deal with angry people on the phone AI is worth it.
AFAIK current gen self driving cars are safer than human drivers if we measure medium lethal accidents by traveled distance. I don't know what are those concerns. They are currently safer and will get safer overtime. Yep quick search finds me recent research that current self driving cars are safer than humans in most situations. Only not being yet safer apparently in low visibility situations, but safer overall. Something 100% fixable. I really do not see the safety complains when studies say that overall they are already safer and less prone to cause human deaths. And there's no strong argument that I know for not believing that they will keep getting more and more safe overall to the point that human driving would probably be considered unethical. I really cannot see any argument besides "new tech scary here". Many lethal accidents are caused by bad human behavior (drunk/drug driving, sleep deprived driving, lack of attention, reckless driving) that a machine would never do. A self driving car won't drink and drive... I really have a very hard time trying to understand anyone against self driven cars. Arguments against it seems... So flimsy... And most of the time I find that the root of the matter is "new technology = scary" a tale as old as time.