I understand not being an absolutist against all things AI.
-
@jrovu Are you actually telling me to shut up and work rather than explain how it's a bad thing that greedy tech bros are actively destroying everything they touch, including the country I live in? Get the fuck out of here.
@cR0w @jrovu See also "if you're not literally in a concentration camp waiting to be executed, it could be worse, we don't deserve it as good as we have it."
For additional examples, call my mom.
(Irony: replyguy answers your question. The people who think you're irrational don't read for comprehension, failing to understand the fairly non-ranty nature of the post. TBH, the "high ground" ad hominem attack and lack of comprehension are also hallmarks of AI generated bot replies too.)
-
@cR0w @jrovu See also "if you're not literally in a concentration camp waiting to be executed, it could be worse, we don't deserve it as good as we have it."
For additional examples, call my mom.
(Irony: replyguy answers your question. The people who think you're irrational don't read for comprehension, failing to understand the fairly non-ranty nature of the post. TBH, the "high ground" ad hominem attack and lack of comprehension are also hallmarks of AI generated bot replies too.)
-
I understand not being an absolutist against all things AI. It's wrong, but I understand. What I don't understand is people who think that those of us avoiding shit with AI or created by AI are irrational or some other offensive term. I don't see how it's different than avoiding code written by a literal honey badger. Neither the honey badger nor the AI know how to code and having them do so shows a lack of fucks given for the quality of the output. That's ( part of ) why we avoid it.
@cR0w I was thinking on this lately, as I was using DuckDuckGo’s AI more and more: you don’t LEARN or retain or progress in any way using something everyone can use.
If tomorrow you don’t know what you did, wrote, or made today, how is that useful or worthwhile to yourself or anyone else?
We teach kids to learn by doing, then use tools that do things for us, while we sit waiting for output, which also makes you feel useless and dumb.
So yeah! Agreed. -
@cR0w @jrovu Agree, I know I really should just let it go. But with this one, It's not the writing style, so much as the complete gormlessness of the angle of attack. I need to get used to it.
POE's law, but for AI bots; an AI response is indistinguishable from a lazy writer who didn't bother to read all of the thing they're replying to.
-
@Netraven That's a very odd thing to read. But it makes sense. Sadly.
-
@cR0w And yet here you are posting & swearing about it, broadcasting it to many people. - Consider focusing your attention on the positive constructive things you are passionate about and value, and promoting those thoughts instread.
-
@cR0w I was thinking on this lately, as I was using DuckDuckGo’s AI more and more: you don’t LEARN or retain or progress in any way using something everyone can use.
If tomorrow you don’t know what you did, wrote, or made today, how is that useful or worthwhile to yourself or anyone else?
We teach kids to learn by doing, then use tools that do things for us, while we sit waiting for output, which also makes you feel useless and dumb.
So yeah! Agreed. -
I understand not being an absolutist against all things AI. It's wrong, but I understand. What I don't understand is people who think that those of us avoiding shit with AI or created by AI are irrational or some other offensive term. I don't see how it's different than avoiding code written by a literal honey badger. Neither the honey badger nor the AI know how to code and having them do so shows a lack of fucks given for the quality of the output. That's ( part of ) why we avoid it.
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@cR0w/116244751172093572
I'm so sorry in advance for this long post, but this has been on my mind lately and I want others' thoughts on it.
I think I agree with the person I'm quoting, but I can't be sure because despite using it, I'm starting to hate "AI" as a term. It's not their fault that the definition has been mutilated, but I have to wonder if they're against AI in theory or in it's current form.
My stance is against any sort of "AI" that steals the work of others and either claims it as original, or uses it to modify someone's otherwise untainted creation. I assume that's what they're referring to, in which case I 100% agree.
That said, I'm unaware of any issues with machine learning itself when ethical and, of course, not based around widespread theft. So, OP, what do you think about using such programs to automate painfully tedious tasks? This wouldn't steal from others or remove any creativity from a work, only use a algorithm to, for instance, display rough subtitles as a placeholder for, or in absence of, proper ones. It could also be used as a starting point for a person to later refine. This kind of thing has been around for years, in the same way text-to-speech voices have helped the vision impaired and even ADHDers like myself (I have trouble reading long-ass academic essays).
Previous examples of this tech haven't caused harm, so if a system for generating subtitles is FLOSS and improves with usage (I think that's what machine learning means?), then it's a good thing, right? How do I distinguish between such software and the dystopian slop machines we're all rallying against?
-
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@cR0w/116244751172093572
I'm so sorry in advance for this long post, but this has been on my mind lately and I want others' thoughts on it.
I think I agree with the person I'm quoting, but I can't be sure because despite using it, I'm starting to hate "AI" as a term. It's not their fault that the definition has been mutilated, but I have to wonder if they're against AI in theory or in it's current form.
My stance is against any sort of "AI" that steals the work of others and either claims it as original, or uses it to modify someone's otherwise untainted creation. I assume that's what they're referring to, in which case I 100% agree.
That said, I'm unaware of any issues with machine learning itself when ethical and, of course, not based around widespread theft. So, OP, what do you think about using such programs to automate painfully tedious tasks? This wouldn't steal from others or remove any creativity from a work, only use a algorithm to, for instance, display rough subtitles as a placeholder for, or in absence of, proper ones. It could also be used as a starting point for a person to later refine. This kind of thing has been around for years, in the same way text-to-speech voices have helped the vision impaired and even ADHDers like myself (I have trouble reading long-ass academic essays).
Previous examples of this tech haven't caused harm, so if a system for generating subtitles is FLOSS and improves with usage (I think that's what machine learning means?), then it's a good thing, right? How do I distinguish between such software and the dystopian slop machines we're all rallying against?
@cloudskater You bring up another pain point in the AI mess we're in and that's the definition of AI. I don't consider traditional machine learning itself to be harmful. However, generative AI and agentic AI systems are inherently terrible, or at least extremely inefficient, for anything besides some lulz. And wealth extraction, of course.
Summarization of papers I think is something that can be done responsibly. In fact, I like what @nopatience has done with summarizing posts for an RSS feed. It's not for you to read the summary instead of the original post, but so you can decide if you want to read the post.
Honestly, it's tough to avoid all AI systems these days, especially if you work in tech. I wouldn't stress about that part. If you focus on the accuracy, consistency, and efficiency of a system, you should naturally weed out most AI garbage. Or at least that's been my experience so far.
-
@jrovu Are you actually telling me to shut up and work rather than explain how it's a bad thing that greedy tech bros are actively destroying everything they touch, including the country I live in? Get the fuck out of here.
@cR0w do not worry, they're just here to inspire you
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
I do try to not assume accounts are bots on here though, even when there are indicators of it. Between all the different languages and methods of translation on the Internet now, a lot of well-meaning people do come across as bots in small interactions like a post and reply.
