Linux

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 1 point 7 hours ago (4 children)

LLMs and other machine "learning" are tools.

Most of what people talk about when they talk about AI... are talking about products. ChatGPT is a product being sold. Claude is a product being sold. "AI" being shoved into other products also makes it a product being sold. etc.

They are not even mutually exclusive words...

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] flilare@piefed.zip 0 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

You're right, they're not mutually exclusive words, but I'm going to thoroughly disagree that people are talking about those specific companies when talking about AI as a technology, which we certainly are here.

You might not like the product that is Claude or whoever, but I don't like Irwin hammers, doesn't mean it's not an effective tool. And it doesn't stop the world from utilizing it. And it doesn't automatically make the job any less correct.

No one is out here trying to have the AI be their OS, they're using it to build things, so the house thing isnt any better. Keeping those teens off the jobsite is only going to stop that house, not the industry. You don't want to live in it, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's not going to be exactly what someone else needs. And those kids did get some experience, even if its just the walls falling down around their ears. Next one will be better.

Would it be ideal if everything was inherently safer and more thoroughly understood by the masses? Yes. Is it a reality that is achievable?

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

lol defending teenagers willy nilly building a house and ignoring building codes...

Your attitude is beyond pathetic. Your attitude would still have us working 10x6 days with no insurance anywhere to be seen. Your attitude reinforces all the shit you think "AI" can fix.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] flilare@piefed.zip -1 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

Yours would have us using bones as clubs.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 1 point 3 hours ago*

Prove it. You cannot, because not only are you too stupid, but I have made no claims that can be validated yet... Interesting how you have failed to realize that and instead went for a basic ad-hominem. Sad.

I understand how technology has advanced over the last several decades. It has NEVER been because a rich pile of fucking filth declared it so. They actually had to provide something for the masses to eat it up...

Weird how you think basic trash that's forgotten in less than a month is somehow competitive with reality.

parent

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 2 points 11 hours ago (7 children)

There's no such thing as 'just a tool', especially if that tool is accelerating climate change when we're already on the knife's edge of irreversible domino effects.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] flilare@piefed.zip -2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (6 children)

Sounds like y'all are afraid, just like the HVAC guys and the mini splits.

Also sounds like that writer needs to learn to use a fork.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 point 9 hours ago (5 children)

You don't think climate change is a massive threat to our habitable biosphere?

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] flilare@piefed.zip 0 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

Yep. That's clearly what I'm saying./s

Now I can see why you thought that article was a rebuttal though.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 point 9 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (3 children)

Your response to my comment mentioning that AI is contributioning to climate change was to suggest it was equivalent to HVAC workers being afraid of heatpumps, which is ridiculous.

If you think climate change is an impending global disaster, do you think building giant data centers that require extremely polluting on-site power generators is not a particularly bad idea, and should factor in heavily on how this technology is used or promoted?

It seems like most users and advocates of LLMs find the idea of limiting its use to just locally hosted models to avoid the majority of the negative externalities to be unthinkable.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] flilare@piefed.zip 0 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Climate change is an issue, but this hardcore stance with no nuance isn't helping. The extreme strawman slippery slopes don't help, either.

You've got a capitalism problem, not an AI one

Data centers don't require any of those things. It absolutely can and should be regulated (or even existing laws enforced.) Irresponsible implementation is an issue, but if the only people with any familiarity with the technology don't care to do any of that? Do you think there is a world where this genie goes back into a bottle?

AI is indisputably helpful in many situations. Most people who I know that use AI generally use local models and that can cover 95% of what people want or need to do with it. (You might have a bit of a blindspot there). But there is a place for the big models as well.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 point 7 hours ago (1 child)

The capitalism problem is also responsible for an inability to regulate AI, as the very people responsible for the regulations are lobbied to fuck by the AI corps to avoid that regulation.

That means the only power to fight back against them rests in the hands if individuals, who can refuse to use the corporate owned tools.

Most people I know are using corporate AI, and appeals to try local LLMs fall on deaf ears in my experience, with claims that they aren't powerful enough or that the hardware to run them is too cost prohibitive. If most of the people you know are running local models, I think that is an exception to the norm.

Would you support FLOSS projects officially restricting any AI contributions to those only made with locally hosted models? As I said, most times I've mentioned that idea in other threads, the pro-AI side was vehemently against it.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] flilare@piefed.zip 0 points 7 hours ago

Absolutely not. Such a community resource is exactly where we need to be employing it. And for building the tools we can use to cut those corps out, that's not a reasonable solution at all.

Human code review, and not such a rush to throw out new "features" would alleviate those issues.

I don't have any data to support it, but I suspect a lot of that use relates to their work and not personal projects. Though I'll admit the Facebook pics and meme generation junk is almost certainly mostly done on corporate systems. But this could be done with reasonable systems as well.

That capitalism problem is so much bigger than AI, but its the problem, not AI.

We would not be anywhere at all as a species if we rejected any advantage, but now with civilization we can do it responsibly. Even if the early days are the Wild West. I can support you or anyone who wants to avoid it, but I can't support a total rejection.