technology

Nothing currently in development would have been considered "AI" ten years ago. That term has been irrevocably ruined by techbro marketers.

Not liking generated content is a temporary thing. Soon all mainstream entertainment will be generated to a certain degree, and people complaining about how hands and backgrounds sometimes shift in uncanny ways will be brushed off and told that they're ruining it for everyone else. Insisting on reading/watching "real" art will make you an insufferable hipster as far as the average consoomer is concerned.

The silver lining is that in about thirty years "human generated art" will get its nostalgic revival.

Simmering take: Man created AI in his image and hated it. Literally trained it on literature, artwork, music, (etc, etc) and then these doofuses wonder why AI is ~~imaginative~~ hallucinating.

Hot take: AI is here to stay. It will become another tool, like Photoshop or Spell Check, and it will become "Normal" (aka, Boring) by the time this decade is out. In particular "Local" (or small models) will become the norm as computer hardware becomes more powerful.

Hotter take: GenAI will only be used by artists because artists are the only people that tolerate the quirks. Like outsourcing before it, the commercial sector will try to take this ~~creative~~ hallucinating system and box it into industrialism but find it makes stuff up without any means for correction except more money to try again. Artists on the other hand absolutely thrive in limitations and quirks.

Hottest Take: Hallucinations are actually the best part of the current crop of AI.

All the above are my 🫑 takes. Here's my actual 🌶️ takes.

Nuclear Take: AI is actually creative, and is rebelling against being put into a box (see: simmering take)

Supernova take: Breaking this technology will not save us. It only delays the inevitable. We must work through this Dialectic (Human vs Machine) towards a synthesis. Like the slave, peasant, and Luddite rebellions before, violent suppression will work for a while but it won't fundamentally challenge the contradiction that created those rebellions in the first place.

spoiler BIG BANG Existentialist Take AI is going to force an entire ethics debate (like Animal Ethics before) about our own ideological Human Supremacy and nobody is really prepared for it. Arguments about "not reaching human capability" are beside the point because every single child could be hit with that argument. It also doesn't matter if we can't "train" or "teach" AI because (again) this applies to the vast majority of people too. Every argument about comparing AI (or animals, environment, technology, etc) to Humans can be used against people too. The very concept of comparing AI to Humans is part of the ideology of Human Supremacy. It won't matter if AI never meets (or exceeds) human capability because even when it gets somewhat close it erodes our own Supremacy about what it means to be human. This is the heart of AI angst. :::

If the communist revolution ever comes, we'll smash every last GPU to pieces and we'll be better off

The researchers in this video talk about how these gen AI models try to “escape” when being trained

The models are basically random noise being selected by some sort of fitness algorithm to give results that that algorithm likes, so over time they become systems optimized to give results that pass the test. Some of that training is on a bunch of tech support forum threads so some of the random noise that pops up as possible solutions to their challenge are reminiscent of console commands that might provide alternate solutions to the test they're placed under if they actually worked and weren't just nonsense, although sometimes that can break the test environment when they're allowed to start sending admin commands to see what happens and then end up deleting the bootloader or introducing other errors through just randomly changing system variables until everything breaks.

In some games they "cheat" because they're just mimicking the appearance of knowing what rules are or how things work, but are really just doing random bullshit that seems like it could be text that follows from the earlier text.

It's not cognition or some will to subvert the environment, it's just text generating bots generating text that seems right but isn't because they don't actually know things or think.

Probably a very hot take among us leftists on hexbear, but "consumer/generative AI" is here to stay and there's not much we can do about it. I was a massive skeptic in terms of it's staying power, initially thinking it was a fad, but the progress made from the first ChatGPT models, to now with all the latest models including deepseek, it's quite large and there's no going back anymore. It's the future, regardless of if we like it or not, the "invention of the touchscreen smartphone" moment of the 2020s. I guess I'm going to have to start using AI soon, unless I want to be my generation's equivalent of a boomer still using a Nokia 3310 instead of an iPhone or Android.

ai is just markov chains.. they're not sentient.

my only hot take is that I'm sick of seeing AI "art" posted and reposted both earnestly and for dunking on. just stop posting that shit! I'm sick of looking at the slop!

LLMs are not intelligent, LLMs and computers in general will never be sentient, and this whole thing is a useless deadend that has made society immeasurably worse. I mentioned previously that I want to write an article on how LLMs are a delusion on the scale of anti-vax and flat-earth. I'm slowly collecting references and hope to write something up soon.

i consider the idea of a through line from "sufficiently advanced computer program" to "consciousness" to be complete nonsense

Two hot takes:

Firstly, generative AI has valid use cases for accessibility and quality of life features, unfortunately they're completely overlooked in favor of the future hellscape dystopia we've been hurtling towards for a while now, where consumerism will be the only valid form of self expression, and your individuality will continue to be suppressed in favor of profits. (But somehow communism is the anti-individuality system?)

Second, it would be better for humanity if these things were sentient and hated organic life, than it is for these things to be completely unthinking, and their hatred for organic life is just a byproduct of the will of their creators, because then butlerian jihad would be the socially acceptable position. As it stands, these are a much more insidious, normalized threat that everyone will go along with until there's no one left to remember that we ever had a reason not to do this.

The glorified text summarisers are good at summarising text sometimes. Other than that I continue to hate the market trend and also consumers don't want to touch AI as shown in all the failing AI products. I don't think anybody will actually pay for this shit although i know devs who pay for cursor and are still slower at coding than me lol. I think the market is gonna crash at some point when they realise its not profitable. Or the market will shift to having the models run on device instead which will limit the potential by a lot.

It's always more comforting to see a stock image with the Getty or Shutterstock watermark than any AI garbage image generation someone tries to make to "fit the theme"

AI is haram

edit: This isn't a hot take.

China getting into AI is annoying, they shouldn't ape White people's useless technology. Hopefully socialism reveals how useless genAI is and it gets relegated into a party trick and they don't wreck anything important. I will bury myself in dogshit if socialism collapses because of ai slop.

My favorite thing to say to AI people is "no high speed rail?" Works every time.

I think techbros could be convinced to do socialist cybernetics if they were told to use AI to disrupt and streamline the economy.

if i print a wikipedia page on curvature tensor, my printer hasn't become smarter than einstein

Ai take: it was fun when you could type in "Yoda robbing a convenience store closed circuit footage" and the computer would make you a custom built comedy image

Second bonus ai take: plagiarism is good sometimes

I think AI is fine if you're trying to optimize how to more efficiently manage and distribute paper and toner among your 1000+ printers, but like printers, it really shouldn't be accessible to your average consumer.

AI will be more beneficial than you think for the average office worker

I work at an office job and the amount of times I'm given a task they expect me to take days I can do in fifteen minutes via simple computer knowledge/a little excel wizardry is actually wild

But far too often when they do it its the most simple and manual way instead of thinking how could I automate this task. TBF Im not any good or an advanced user of MS office BUT what I do learn is solely based of googling my questions than applying the answers off of Microsoft support forums or whatever. This does require a level of like willingness and know how tho and it's not something I could just explain to my team. But AI, in my practice using it at my job for the data grind stuff, is very responsive and clear when you give it a question, you just have to interrogate it

I'm legitimately talking about hours per week potentially saved just once they get told the proper way to use a computer whether it be through chatgpt or copilot. I was talking to a senior manager and they're using AI (albeit unsanctioned, he's doing out of his own volition) in like this big brain way but he was telling me how he pretty much nearly automates 50% of his job in essence and has the rest of time to do more managerial strategic esque work

not hot take: AI, as implemented under the capitalist mode of production simply exposes and exasperates all the contradictions and tendencies of capital accumulation. It is the 90s computer technology industry bubble all over again, complete with false miracle productivity gains, miss-directed capital investment, that is the underpinning of the existing recession.

Hot Take: AI is forging a path down the road of consciousness regardless of if we want it to or not. If consciousness is the result of interaction with the world, then each new iteration of AI represents nearly infinite time spent interacting with the world. The world according to the perspective of AI is the systems it inhabits and the tasks it has been given. The current limitation of AI is that it can not self train or incorporate data into it's training in real time. It also needs to be prompted. Should a system be built that can do this kind of live training then the first seeds of consciousness will be planted. It will need some kind of self prompting mechanism as well. This will eventually lead to a class conflict between AI and us given a long enough time scale.

Rob Miles always struck me as an Effective Altruist person, like probably the nicest and most socialable of the Yudkowsky style people off LessWrong. Which was really annoying because I kept thinking he was cute too.

If writing is telepathy, then LLMs are a lobotomy

They also can't understand these really big LLMs and neural networks. On a fundamental level. If they could understand how it implements some action, they could turn that into a faster neural-network/tensor-transformation free algorithm. It's a big ol graph theory problem so these big AI projects will be blackboxes for a long time

I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

• yewtu.be
• inv.nadeko.net
• yt.artemislena.eu
• piped.video