Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. I've been an AI researcher for 12 years now. I work primarily in climate and environment, and right now I'm using AI for super resolution of wind field predictions, to better forecast wildfire spread. Prior to this project I was using AI and remote sensing to monitor and predict wheat crop health in northern India to feed into various food security monitoring systems (e.g. FEWSNET). There are millions of AI use cases that tangibly improve the world.

At the same time, those same underlying principles of AI are being used to develop tools to better surveil people, control them, and profit off of them so the tech fascists can gain even more control. Both things can be true. It's the billionaires who are funding these massive investments that are evil. It's always the billionaires.

Steel can be used to construct buildings and can also be used to construct weapons. You wouldn't say steel is evil right?

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You know that when people who complain about AI say "AI", they mean diffusion models and LLMs, not the field of machine learning as a whole.

Are you defending those too? If not, why did you enter this conversation?

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I literally use diffusion models for the super resolution part of the wind field predictions lol. Also I use LLMs to aid in the research every day.

It's ok if you don't know how things actually work, just don't be so confidently incorrect.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

First of all, I'm not the person you replied to. Second, which part of what they said was wrong?

[–] anzo@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you're the one wrong. You were accusing zd9 to be defending diffusion models and LLMs. So they said: yes, I am precisely using those and not just any other machine learning algorithm. Yet, you didn't seem to understand... or you're just really unable to see yourself as being incorrect? :/

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 0 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

@zd9@lemmy.world responded to this comment:

Nobody who uses AI treats it like a tool, they treat it like an employee they can claim credit for. And most tools aren't actively detrimental to the user to the point of proven intelligence drops, lawsuits and environmental destruction. Also, the enemy charges you money to use it.

The only person who benefits from AI is the person selling it. So why are you trying to defend it?

with a reply that amounted to "I'm an AI researcher, and you're wrong about the technology. There are plenty of legitimate uses."

Which part of the original comment do either you or zd9 disagree with?

Let's go through it claim by claim.

Nobody who uses AI treats it like a tool, they treat it like an employee they can claim credit for.

This is subjective, so I'll let you have it, but it's true in a lot of cases. Vibe coders and AI artists definitely do, and people who use it as a coding assistant arguably do.

most tools aren't actively detrimental to the user to the point of proven intelligence drops,

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

lawsuits

I'm not sure what precisely @susaga@sh.itjust.works meant by this, so until they clarify I'll tentatively say you can have that one too.

and environmental destruction.

Where to begin? Clean air act violating natural gas turbines on xAI datacenters? Houses being claimed under eminent domain to build beefier power lines because they use that much? Water use?

Also, the enemy charges you money to use it.

Unless you're using a local LLM, this is obviously true.

Again I ask: which part of the comment zd9 replied to was wrong?

[–] anzo@programming.dev 1 points 6 hours ago

Oh, this is not about the top level comment anymore. Zd9 replied one positive use of AI. Not to demeanor the negative sides by that, only to put a fact on the table. Then you came in... the discussion now shifted into.. this. I am no longer engaging, sorry. I didn't mean to discuss at all, only wanted to help u see how the conversation was about you not understanding something... It's there, your downvoted comment.