Ask Lemmy

I see we're reaching the whiny stage of the collapse

Sure, why not, if it stops being bad? (Good luck with that)

If something is fucking dogshit, like these LLMs are, then we'll call it fucking dogshit.

What's the issue, OP?

Why should we stop calling LLM bad ?

Maybe when they realize 'bad' isn't a strong enough word.

Yes, the moment when people with actual talent use them in ways that actually help their jobs.

Right now the ones using them the most are the wannabes that fancy themselves as artists for "having ideas" but never spent 5 minutes practising, those that value quantity over quality and are incapable of seeing the difference, and those that want to skip as many people as possible.

"Everyone Is Using A.I. for Everything" nowadays, a.k.a. vibe-living, and if you don’t, you’re a misfit outsider who should be stoned to death in the town square to prevent contagion, and then A.I. should resurrect you virtually from your data so you can be stoned to death in the virtual town square, for infinity…

Criticizing A.I. as a criminal plagiarizing machine that steals the work of artists without permission or compensation used to strike me as a bit hyperbolic…

The point is, I’m not saying all this to defend humanity. Humanity sucks. It’s totally terrible. I’m saying this because I believe in an old-fashioned virtue called Doing the Freakin’ Work.

Read the book, not the summary.
Write the piece, not the prompt.

Suffer like the artist you are. It ain’t easy, but if it were easy, it wouldn’t be worth doing.

Source: https://lemmy.world/post/46352865 (Chris (Simpsons artist) has illustrated a New York Times essay on artists using AI…)

Fudge AI in art, and creativity, or even technical responsible fields like programming.
And isn't programming for human to control machinery, too?
I do still recall the book that featured Lisp, from MIT University we read:

Our goal is that students who complete this subject should have a good feel for the elements of style and the aesthetics of programming.

They should have command of the major techniques for controlling complexity in a large system.
They should be capable of reading a 50- page-long program, if it is written in an exemplary style.
They should know what not to read, and what they need not understand at any moment.
They should feel secure about modifying a program, retaining the spirit and style of the original author.

These skills are by no means unique to computer programming. The techniques we teach and draw upon are common to all of engineering design. We control complexity by building abstractions that hide details when appropriate.
We control complexity by establishing conventional interfaces that enable us to construct systems by combining standard, well-understood pieces in a "mix and match" way. We control complexity by establishing new languages for describing a design, each of which emphasizes particular aspects of the design and deemphasizes others.

~ Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (SICP) [ISBN: 0262510871]

It does not allow you to actually organize your own mind, to discover yourself, memorize, and learn.
Generative is empty. It's noise. Do you like listen to and learn from noise? I don't, and will never.

Obviously, there's no creativity in AI, and especially in art.

AI makes no art, and there's nothing to search for in it, also considering the amount of different people works and effort meatground into digital limited/sampled quantized data. It's noise.

There's no place for a machine in it, otherwise it becomes limited, lacking, and lifeless.
Art exists for people, us the humans to communicate with each other through time and narrow channels as general languages.

> "There are always two people in every picture..." ~ Ansel Adams

Source (AI struggles with true creativity compared to humans, study finds...)

Again, fudge AI over effort. Effort helps to stay accountable, responsible, and to realize the significance and infinite marvel of art...
Art is of human for human.

AI is bad for all industries. It just regurgitates jumbled up words and phrases. At best it's a liability which produces sub-human level of work with no regard for morality or consequences, and at worst it will send your company into bankruptcy and ruin your reputation for as long as you live.

There are three valid use cases for AI with few drawbacks:

1. Misinforming a large number of people on social media

2. Flooding online places with slop in order to prevent people from seeing real information, such as covering up political or financial scandals

3. Making funny AI Cover Songs by Quagmire, Peridot, and/or Squidward

For everything else, you will lose more than you gain.

Very much doubt it.

People can get really aggressive about AI and on the one hand I get it but on the other nastiness isn't needed IMO

Aren't people free to call it how they fancy? Or are you one of those persons that think people are wrong the moment they don't like what you like, and don't dislike what you dislike?

Theoretically it should improve. If it got good enough and if our global society made sure people can live sustainably with good lives. I think people would embrace it. As a dystopian replacement for humans that does not seem to function very well as one. Nope.

Sure, in the inevitable future where AI has complete control over everyone's writing, speech, and thought.

It's probably going to be a generational change. I'm very interested to see what happens with it in twenty years. The kids growing up with it today will have some interesting ideas what to do with it, I think.

I hope to see more local models and more efficient ones purpose built for specific use cases. But we have to get to the other side of the hype and hate.

Hope not, but tendency in general is for everything to go to shit so I wouldn't be surprised if yes