Not sure if this is the best community to post in; please let me know if there’s a more appropriate one. AFAIK Aii@programming.dev is meant for news and articles only.

  • ejs@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Most arguments people make against AI are in my opinion actually arguments against capitalism. Honestly, I agree with all of them, too. Ecological impact? A result of the extractive logic of capitalism. Stagnant wages, unemployment, and economic dismay for regular working people? Gains from AI being extracted by the wealthy elite. The fear shouldn’t be in the technology itself, but in the system that puts profit at all costs over people.

    Data theft? Data should be a public good where authors are guaranteed a dignified life (decoupled from the sale of their labor).

    Enshittification, AI overview being shoved down all our throats? Tactics used to maximize profits tricking us into believing AI products are useful.

    • zd9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      AI is just a tool like anything else. What’s the saying again? "AI doesn’t kill people, capitalism kills people?

      I do AI research for climate and other things and it’s absolutely widely used for so many amazing things that objectively improve the world. It’s the gross profit-above-all incentives that have ruined “AI” (in quotes because the general public sees AI as chatbots and funny pictures, when it’s so much more).

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        46 minutes ago

        The quotes are because “AI” doesn’t exist. There are many programs and algorithms being used in a variety of way. But none of them are “intelligent”.

        There is literally no intelligence in a climate model. It’s just data + statistics + compute. Please stop participating in the pseudo-scientific grift.

      • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Are you talking about AI or LLM branded as LLM?

        Actual AI is accurate and efficient because it is designed for specific tasks. Unlike LLM which is just fancy autocomplete.

        • 8andage@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Even llms are useful for coding, if you keep it in its auto complete lane instead of expecting it to think for you

          Just don’t pay a capitalist for it, a tiny, power efficient model that runs on your own pc is more than enough

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            58 minutes ago

            Yes technology can be useful but that doesn’t make it “intelligent.”

            Seriously why are people still promoting auto-complete as “AI” at this point in time? It’s laughable.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Data theft? Data should be a public good where authors are guaranteed a dignified life (decoupled from the sale of their labor).

      I’ve seen it said somewhere that, with the advent of AI, society has to embrace UBI or perish, and while that’s an exaggeration it does basically get the point across.

      • draco_aeneus@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I don’t think that AI is as disruptive as the steam engine, or the automatic loom, or the tractor. Yes, some people will lose their jobs (plenty of people have already) but the amount of work that can be done which will benefit society is near infinite. And if it weren’t, then we could all just work 5% fewer hours to make space for 5% unemployment reduction. Unemployment only exists in our current system to threaten the employed with.

        • missingno@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 hours ago

          You might be right about the relative impact of AI alone, but there are like a dozen different problems threatening the job market all at once. Added up, I do think we are heading towards a future where we have to start rethinking how our society handles employment.

          A world where robots do most of the hard work for us ought to be a utopia, but as you say, capitalism uses unemployment as a threat. If you can’t get a job, you starve and die. That has to change in a world where we’ll have far more people than jobs.

          And I don’t think it’s as simple as just having us all work less hours - every technological advancement that was once said would lead to shorter working hours instead only ever led to those at the top pocketing the surplus labor.

          • draco_aeneus@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Yes, I 100% agree with you. The ‘working less’ solution was just meant as a simple thought exercise to show that with even a relatively small change, we could eliminate this huge problem. Thus the fact that the system works in this way is not an accident.