Excel requires some skill to use (to the point where high-level Excel is a competitive sport), and AI is mostly an exercise in deskilling its users and humanity at large.
Excel requires some skill to use (to the point where high-level Excel is a competitive sport), and AI is mostly an exercise in deskilling its users and humanity at large.
But, even considering that LLMs are useful, you have to take into account the immense amount of resources that are consumed which training and inference, especially at a time when we cannot afford to. Personally, I feel like they are not worth that expenditure, for the benefit. Regarding rest of the ML models, they might just get caught in the wave of that backlash, that to be fair only LLMs deserve.
Just to be clear, I am not anti-AI, just anti-hype.
Then why aren’t we going after streaming, which currently is much worse for the environment?
Not that I don’t agree it should be salient, and caps should definitely be put on big companies for this kind of stuff, generally, only doing it for AI is not really doing much, but people don’t seem to care about actually improving thing rather than beating the tribal drum.
I agree with the need for action, my issue is the direction and framing, especially part the socially reified misinformation. Musk is a good target while he is ignoring current standards for generators and the like, but the general dialogue around that is full of made up numbers and claims, and nobody cares because it serves the tribal preference.
Like the idea that ai cuts and pastes existing work to make a new image. That’s not how it works, and artists used to attack artists for the same style “theft” that just doesn’t recognize how brains work, how human social learning works, or how art and styles develop over time.
Also the energy for conversation is being wasted on these moot points, rather than the larger systemic issues.
Also some of AI is being developed to directly counter that problem, but I don’t see much advocating for it in these spaces,
Rather it gets downvoted for “being AI,” completely ignoring why AI was supposed to be a problem in the first place, and void of any active effort to improve things.
Same communication issues affecting the socio-political sphere, which is why it’s good to learn generally about intelligent systems and how they work.
Like, how often do you hear people complain that AI is “just predictions systems” completely vacant of the understanding that we are all predictive systems, and predictive processing is the current general consensus in the nero-psych realm now. Etc.
Basically, like most complex things, it feels impossible to talk about because the simplified social model dominates discourse, and everyone hates scientists for trying to bring annoying reality, and diverse perspectives into the conversation.
I mean, learn about epistemics and you’ll learn more about AI. Although being familiar with diverse perspectives, while appropriately untangling the dissonance of their differences is basically the core of both AI and sociology.
But seeing artists get miffed because the Warner/Disney model of art economy might not be compatible with reality and positive growth of our species.
I hope we can at least both agree, eat the rich and bring back more diverse systems that can check and balance each other.