rabiezaater

I gave positives along side the negative, which most people vigorously against AI (which seems to be all of the fediverse) refuse to acknowledge as positives. I do have an agenda, which is to try to understand why there is such a blind and vigorous hate for something I and a lot of people find quite useful, and which could be beneficial for productivity if people use it effectively.

Again, this is a lot of hyperbole.

Is AI killing the planet, or is capitalism and addiction to fossil fuels? If AI was 100 renewable and run based on community consent, would it still be "killing the planet"?

In what way does AI "steal" in any way more significantly than an artist uses another artist for inspiration or a coder uses another open source project for their code?

How does AI widen inequality worse than it has been already, and is that solely the result of AI or is it just a product of capitalism?

I could go through the entire list, but you get the idea. A lot of the "evils" of AI are actually just symptoms of deeper systemic issues that have nothing to do with AI itself.

I would definitely be curious to see the research on that. I do think there are dangers with regard to relying on AI too heavily, but as a complement to existing technologies, I don't think it can hurt any more than a calculator hurts your ability to do math.

Think of how shitty and scam filled the early internet was. Did we abandon it because of how shitty it was at first, or did we develop it and tweak it to it's full potential?

I mean, even Linus Torvalds acknowledges the benefits ffs

You don't need the library, go talk to the elders. See how silly that sounds? Why are people such luddites?

Your response is a perfect example of the hyperbolic hate against AI I see.

Why exactly should AI stay in the medical field, but be restricted from every other field? What about medicine makes it worth using, but makes it useless and evil in every other field?

AI does not copy. It takes things as inspiration and synsthesizes it into something new, just like anyone else. I know an artist who worked for the simpsons. He does a lot of his own work now in the simpsons style. Is he plagiarizing Matt Groening because he is using that style? Or is he just inspired by his time working there?

No, AI is not taking water from people. AI uses a very small amount of the total water, and industrial agriculture uses thousands of times more water overall. The ogalala aquifer and Colorado River started drying up before AI even came to be.

From here out are all actually pretty good reasons. The hardware thing sucks, and I wish the government was not so in bed with these companies that they let them just hoard all the hardware like they do. I think the internet in general has been making people stupider for a while, but AI has certainly accelerated it. The hallucination is annoying as shit, but it has gotten better over time, to a certain extent.

Definitely acknowledge all those down sides. Again though, it's like any technology that has pluses and minuses. I guess the question is whether we should throw out all the benefits and assume the negatives are unfixable, or should we try to look at how we can solve them?

Those are examples that have broader applications and implications in other areas, i.e., learning a creativity. Are those not good enough benefits to consider it a useful technology?

My point is that there are downsides, but there are also upsides, just like anything else. The internet in general has dramatically increased electricity usage from what it was previously, but people are acting like AI is adding some unprecedented load on the grid, which in the vast majority of places it is not (despite what a lot of online discussion would have you believe). Any artist or coder uses the art or code of others for inspiration, and yet AI is evil for doing the same? It's just a lot of negativity without acknowledging the benefit.