-6
So I was just banned from /c/unpopularopinion for posting an unpopular opinion (lemmus.org)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I don't even know who the mod is, or why they didn't contact me. They just removed my post with a single word - "troll". How rude! I guess my opinions are too unpopular even for Lemmy 🫪

Edit: The power tripping bastard who sniped me was /u/JonsJava.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

Not to speak to the ban particularly, but to your original proposal. I think the distinction of AI vs other tools is that AI is used as a substitute for human work where other tools are simply used by the developer in their craft.

I recently got a fully automatic espresso machine that grinds and processes the whole works. If by some miracle chance it could make a better pour than the local barista it's not me by any stretch that's owed the credit for the output, the machine would be. That's where the AI = tool concept breaks down.

I suspect a better post for an unpopular opinion might be "it's unessecary to label AI generated code because..." rather than "we should foist some absurd requirement on everything that could be extended logically to an infinate level of where and when the silicon for their chips was souced"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    I would disagree. It's not like the tool is working of it's own volition, in a vacuum. There's still a person there; instigating, directing and reviewing. Scoff if you're so inclined, but "prompt engineering" is a real skill with measurable impact on the quality of the result.

    The fully automatic espresso machine, therefore, is not a good analogy. You load the coffee and press the button. It doesn't matter how hard you push the button, or from which angle. You don't direct the machine as it requires clarification, and once the coffee is made you can't in any way change the outcome. It's wholly different from using AI as a tool.

    I'm a realist, and recognize the sentiment of anti-AI consumers isn't going away in the next decade. It's already implemented, and I'm not going to attempt to argue it should be removed - instead, continue the thought and implement it thoroughly, rather than isolate the scrutiny to a single tool in the chain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    By that token I would play the role of the user by deciding the beans, the water, and the fineness of the grind, but the machine did the rest by actually initiating the actions, tamping the beans, pressing the water and determining the length of time. My input is a trivial part of the machine's output, similar to selecting a model and (if within your control) setting some sampling parameters. At best you're providing educated guesses into guiding the output.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Fair enough. So if you chose bad beans, ground them poorly, and used dirty water - you are responsible for how the coffee turned out, no? So you can't attribute the quality entirely to the machine that simply heated up the water and poured it over the grounds. In both cases it's a team effort; the better the user, and the better the machine, the better the outcome.

    I still believe you have more control over the final product in using AI, though, because you decide when it matches the vision directing you to make whatever it is you're making. The coffee machine is one shot, unless you're going to continually pour out the pot and try again until the quality matches your aim.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

    Nothing in the physical and digital realms is directly analogous, that's been discussed to death since the original Napster era.

    The comparison in my mind is more about the competance of the person involved. In either case with AI or an automated coffe machine any average person could viably manage passable output. Take the tool away though and a large portion of those same people wouldn't know where to start. In those cases the machine is primarily responsible for the output. It's also likely that the output is in some way sub-optimal. To claim 'I made this' when, stripped of the automated machine the user would be helpless, is dishonest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

    I would agree with you on it being down to the competence of the person involved in the process. However, if you were to take these qualifications and apply them to other professions then I think you would find few, if any, of them actually exist.

    Like how many architects can design massive structures without CAD? How many physicists can do quantum mechanics without the machines that enable particle collision? How many astronomers can study the cosmos without their telescope? How many accountants can balance the books of corporations without a computer?

    Yes, AI enables people to do things that they otherwise wouldn't be able to do, but that's why it's such an incredible innovation! I understand that Lemmy is comprised of people who feel strongly that they alone are deserving of creation because of the amount of study, practice and effort they've put into their skills, but disparaging others because it's become easier feels like gatekeeping. I think it should be celebrated that more people can share in my passion for software development, not upset that my skills are essentially trivialized.

    Maybe this is truly, deep down, an expression of ego?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child)

    How many of the same would an unskilled amateur be able to produce comparable results from?

    If the user doesn't understand the work being done then at some point the skill is lost. If every coder alive simply stopped their studies then in order to properly know what was being output from the AI we would essentially need to reinvent the wheel.

    Offloading human skills into a machine owned by a small group of absurdly wealthy individuals risks dependence on them. Long before AI systems existed we passed on skills and knowledge from master to apprentance (or whatever title is appropriate to a field) with the master supervising and correcting the work of the new workers. Forgoing that passage of learning by simply asking for a given result from a machine... I picture the scene from Idiocracy where a clerk is selecting from a picture menu at the hospital.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 21 hours ago

    You're not wrong, at all. The only correction I'd like to make it that no one is beholden to use the machines owned by the absurdly wealthy. I much prefer to use the open weight models on local hardware. It's a privilege that I relish.

    We should have apprenticeships. We should have on the job training. We should have a lot of things, but we don't. Barring a complete overhaul of society I don't see any of that changing. Pandora's Box isn't closing , and the genie isn't going back into the bottle. Instead, we have to deal with reality as it is, so I embrace it rather than fight it, and make the most of it.

    We were headed towards Idiocracy long before the advent of AI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent