If you want regulation on where they're put, tell them that, and your lawmakers that keep approving that shit.

xAI is indeed a shit company, e.g Google runs on mostly green energy but I'm sure that's also bad somehow

Molotovs won't make them fix the chatbot

"actually just the clothes dryers in the USA combined use more" oh good. in that case i'm sure glad that every AI company isn't planning to build more datacenters to meet the obviously growing demand with no regard for the people who will live near them (don't worry, they only build them in rural backwaters where only poor people live). it was really infuriating when bitcoin miners started buying and reactivating decomissioned coal power plants to power their bitcoin farms, and it's reassuring to know AI is less bad than that. wait, what was that about xAI and natural gas turbines?

"why not hold PEOPLE accountable?" okay. sam altman, take down your chatbot, it's making people kill themselves. i hope the third molotov thrown through your window does the job

And I get it, you didn't ask for AI and now you have to deal with it, but it's not going away, so it really really pays to actually articulate what you dislike about 'AI'

"AI does bad things" AI isn't a person. Why not hold people accountable?

"AI uses stolen training data" Some do yes! PLEASE say that instead of 'AI bad' because it doesn't land when you do that!

"Hardware-" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing_scandal

Mass hysteria removes the nuance we need to have impact.

Do note that I specifically said "generative AI" because unlike some, I am actually perfectly okay with traditional machine learning, which I believe does offer a net benefit for society. I can't say the same for generative slop, however, and I want absolutely nothing to do with that.

I believe the big problem is the overuse of LLMs and giving them the ability to make a final decision. LLMs are quantity over quality, and such make anything it has a larger role in a product of likely lesser quality, this is why it being used to write vital components in important projects is worrying.

AI is innefficent by design, that's why complicated models aren't fit for this much mass-cosumption or general use, it is in a lot of cases used as a (generally less reliable) replacement for efficently coded functions.

AI in it's core is just a program that creates the illusion of intelligence, but it is not intelligent, and unfortunately some seem to not understand that.

It's used by people who don't know or don't care what it actually is and try to make promises that don't match reality.

I do see some practical value in AI and LLMs but I also think the harms and negative impact of it massively outweigh the value they provide for the average person. People's power bills are being sharply driven upwards, its inclusion in more and more corners of our operating systems is actively making the experience worse, people are being pushed deeper into mental illnesses by interacting with it, and social media is impossible to use without being duped into thinking something generated by AI is real. It's honestly maddening.

I know your point is that AI should be more regulated so it doesn't have these problems, but I also think it's fair that people continue to hate on AI until these regulations are put in place. There are enough experts pushing for these regulations that I don't think the bulk of people putting their energy into hating AI instead of pushing for regulations is really detracting from the movement that much.

But if you hate and push off the subject as a whole, you also step out of the constructive debate to form and improve this tech away from a direction you don't want and towards something you do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, hating AI is like hating crime. you're not going to lower the prevalence of crime that way. we need tangible and real solutions