source

The alarmism around AI is just a marketing spin.

As @pluralistic@mamot.fr wrote: that’s “mystical nonsense about spontaneous consciousness arising from applied statistics”.

Real problems we face with AI are:

Ghost labor, erosion of the rights of artists, costs of automation, the climate impact of data-centers and the human impact of biased, opaque, incompetent and unfit algorithmic systems.

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/27/10-types-of-people/

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, we had to rename AI to AGI, because marketing fuckers decided they’re naming a (very smart) predictive model an AI. I’ve had a dumber version in my phone decades ago, this should’ve never been called AI.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s so annoying how suddenly everyone’s so convinced that “AI” is some highly specific thing that hasn’t been accomplished yet. Artificial intelligence is an extremely broad subject of computer science and things that fit the description have been around for decades. The journal Artificial Intelligence was first published in 1970, 54 years ago.

          We’ve got something that’s passing the frickin’ Turing test now, and all of a sudden the term “artificial intelligence” is too good for that? Bah.

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            We dont have anything that passes the Turing test. The test isnt just “does it trick people casually talking to it into thinking its a person” its can it decieve a pannel of experts deliberately try to tease out which one of the “people” they are talking to isnt a human.

            AFAIK no LLM has passed a rigourious test like that.

            • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              9 months ago

              GPT4 ironically fails the Turing test by possessing such a wide knowledge on variety of topics that it’s obvious it can’t be a human. Basically it’s too competent to be a human even despite its flaws

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                This is my problem with the conversation. It doesn’t “posses knowledge” like we think of with humans. It repeats stuff it’s seen before. It doesn’t understand the context in which it was encountered. It doesn’t know if it came from a sci-fi book or a scientific journal, and it doesn’t understand the difference. It has no knowledge of the world and how things interact. It only appears knowledgeable because it can basically memorize a lot of things, but it doesn’t understand them.

                It’s like cramming for a test. You may pass the test, but it doesn’t mean you actually understand the material. You could only repeat what you read. Knowledge requires actually understanding why the material is what it is.

            • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah, and in no way could it. Just ask how many words are in its reply and it will say, “There are 37 words in this reply.” It’s not even vaguely convincing.

              • otp@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Yeah, it should just say “Why would you ask me such a stupid question? Count them yourself.”

            • TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Nobody is doing these tests, but it’s not uncommon these days for mistaking something for being AI generated. Even in professional settings, people are hypervigilant.

          • bitwaba@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Nothing can pass the turing test for me, because I’m pretty sure everyone is a robot including me.

          • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

            Artificial Intelligence is a scientific journal on artificial intelligence research. It was established in 1970 and is published by Elsevier. The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and Science Citation Index. The 2021 Impact Factor for this journal is 14. 05 and the 5-Year Impact Factor is 11.

            to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about

      • Phanatik@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        Whenever some dipshit responds to me with “you’re talking about AGI, this is AI”, my only reply is fuck right off.

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Obviously, trivially, blatantly false, because the AI safety people have been at it since long before there was anything to market. Back then, the bullshit criticism was “AI will never be able to understand language or interpret pictures; what harm could it possibly ever do?”

    • jimbo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      AI still doesn’t “understand” language or pictures or anything else. It’s little more than statistical analysis based on text and input from humans tagging photos. The fact that we can get some neat output is not indicitive that any understanding is going on behind the scenes.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Even today there are a ton of people who simply seem uncapable of playing out the thought experiment about AGI being more competent than humans at virtually everything. They somehow seem to imagine our current generative AI models somehow being a proof that it can never actually deliver and become what the AI safety people have been worried about for decades.

    • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah and now it’s just people fearmongering “AI is the worst thing to happen to artists, musicians, graphic designers - and it steals everyone’s work! And and it might become Skynet! And and…” people who don’t understand technology always seem to do this. They did it with Crypto, did it with NFTs, and now legitimate technologies have to escape a reputational black hole all because scammers and grifters decided to use it maliciously.

      • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        people who don’t understand technology always seem to do this. They did it with Crypto, did it with NFTs

        😬

      • androogee (they/she)@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Those morons warned us about these other things (that definitely did have all the problems that they warned about, nothing more annoying than a moron that’s repeatedly proven right. What complete idiots.) Anyway they’re definitely wrong about this thing.”

        Do you hear yourself bruv?

        I have mixed feelings about “AI” , and you’ve practically convinced me to be against it. I doubt you could craft a less compelling argument if you tried.

        • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Oh nice another person that knows the buzzwords and generally has opinions but has no deeper knowledge whatsoever. You’re the most fun kind of person to argue against.

          I’d let you pick which topic you feel the most strongly against but neither you nor I will have the attention span to finish this if we treated it like an actual conversation so I’ll just go after AI since you have mixed feelings.

          Yes, generative AI probably shouldn’t be used on copyrighted works however, AI is a tool no different from photoshop. The only difference between someone cutting up pictures of sunsets and melding them together in photoshop is the ungodly time constraints. Keeping in mind that doing the photoshop method is completely covered under DMCA so it’s legally protected, but what about morally? Sure, if you’re concerned about using someone’s work then you’d need AI that was trained on copyright-free training sets and I’m sure some already exist. Though I personally don’t have any objections about copyrighted works being manipulated into something different because that’s the definition of transformative. Even if it starts with something someone owns, it just has to be different enough and often times it is.

          • androogee (they/she)@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Can’t engage with the actual criticism so you just get all huffy and defensive and try to change the topic.

            You gotta get a new script, it’s 2024. This shit is boring.

            • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Good retort! I went into deep detail to address your retardation and you just go “nuh uh”. At least call me a tech bro or something else to disregard what I actually fucking said.

              Cower, Beg, Cry, whatever gets you through the next few years of technology development. It won’t stop just because you’re outraged and I’m glad it won’t.

  • grayman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    “AI” has been diluted to mean nothing but marketing wank. 99.999% of “AI” is single variable linear regression estimation. Almost all of the rest is multi variable linear regression.