this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
57 points (76.1% liked)
Asklemmy
54720 readers
909 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I somewhat agree with you, the tech is amazing. But I also think that the current shape of "AI" is what it is due to a massive unsustainable investment directed in the vast majority by ill intent. The technology would not be what it is today without it being used for what is hated for. If you "fix" the hated parts then it becomes something entirely different to what it is today, if anything at all.
I think that the perspective that the tech is is hated because its trendy looses weight very rapidly when you realize that it would probably just not exist if not for the insane power-hungry assholes that are shoving it down our throats every damn day.
I don't really agree. I use this tech for coding, doing translations, speech to text transcriptions, extracting data from PDF documents, and none of these use cases would be different if the tech wasn't commercially driven. I also disagree that it wouldn't exist if it wasn't developed under our current dominant economic system. AI research has been around for a long time, and has been done extensively in socialist countries like USSR.
Its not that it wouldn't exist, its that the current form is shaped by the profit incentive. The fact that is a useful technology doesn't mean that the AI we are being forced to use is like that due to a capitalist mode of production. Coding help may be useful to a point, but its only so thanks to a massive level of compute power that wouldn't be available under a reasonable mode of production.
I wholeheartedly diasagree with the idea that a socialst world would have gone with this as a priority to the point of making it something like what we see know. Would it be developing it? For sure! Would it have anything related to its current most extended use cases? No way.
The whole trope that LLMs need absurd levels of energy use has not been true for a while now. People latched on to this idea because early models were hideously inefficient, as is the case with pretty much any new technology. Today, you can run local coding models on your laptop that surpass the capabilities of frontier models needing whole data centres to run just a year ago. You no longer need an inordinate amount of computing power to run any of this stuff, and performance gains haven't stopped. There's no indication that we're close to any sort of a limit here.
Also, nowhere did I say that a socialist world would have developed it in the same fashion. I'm merely pointing out that it would have been developed, and there would have been many existing use cases which I listed which have little to do with commercial incentives. I get the impression that you're conflating hype with the actual legitimate use of which there are plenty already.
Finally, there is really nothing stopping people from developing this technology in open source fashion. And that's the way to decouple this tech from commercial incentives going forward. There are already open models to build on, and that should be leveraged to develop completely open alternatives which are community driven.