you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child)

I did not say that. You, like everyone else that says "its just a tool and technology is neutral", should read more books about ethics, politics and sociology. Everything we do is political. Nothing is "neutral".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 17 hours ago* (1 child)

    I'm not saying the use cases that some have chosen for certain tools is neutral. Their behavior is indeed bad and should be called out. Ai for instance is at it's core just a mathematical structure that has no intrinsic behavior, same for the concept of algorithms for social media or algorithms for drones or algorithms for the internet. Yeah some people use the internet to cause a lot of harm or even guide the outcomes of nations but is it the fault of html, CSS, and JavaScript? Not really. The problem is some companies, some people, some government officials and their choices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (1 child)

    Firstly "AI" is a meaningless marketing term. And LLMs are fundamentally flawed. And especially anything by OpenAI/Anthropic/Meta/xAI should be avoided as they have shown zero regard for the actual negative impact of their products.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 15 hours ago* (1 child)

    Sure, you know the term existed long before it became a financial buzz word right? Anyways in which sense are LLMs or NNs fundamentally flawed? I still believe your chief complaint is about the actions of people and not some mathematical structure much in the same way arguments about engagement algorithms on social media platforms is more about people and their choices than C++ or a binary tree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (1 child)

    You know that it was a financial buzzword from the very beginning? I'll leave you with a reading suggestion: 'The AI con" from Timnit Gebru and Emily Bender. The latter also has various lectutes online about the topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

    How would you prefer people talk technology that allows machines to think, learn, and perform tasks that usually require human intelligence?

    We could encode some behavior with mechanical automaton but we can encode far more behavior and more complex behavior with electronic computers. There's no known strict limit beyond computation to the complexity of behavior we can encode. Now with a fully digitized fruit fly brain one can theorize about a fully digitized human brain. What would we call this if not artificial intelligence? How about other models that encode approximate behavior to human level intelligence?

    The term has linguistic meaning and isn't just marketing nonsense like calling food products all natural. That said there's definitely been a ramp up of people calling essentially if-else chains artificial intelligence, lots of abuse of the term.

  • source
  • parent