• Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    6 months ago

    They worded the headline that way to scare you into that reaction. They’re only interested in telling you about the negative uses because that drives engagement.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I understand AI evangelists - which you may or may not be idk - look down on us Luddites who have the gall to ask questions, but you seriously can’t see any potential issue with this technology without some sort of restrictions in place?

      You can’t see why people are a little hesitant in an era where massive international corporations are endlessly scraping anything and everything on the Internet to dump into LLM’s et al to use against us to make an extra dollar?

      You can’t see why people are worried about governments and otherwise bad actors having access to this technology at scale?

      I don’t think these people should be locked up or all AI usage banned. But there is definitely a middle ground between absolute prohibition and no restrictions at all.

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          And your comment was unnecessarily patronizing IMO. Do you think they needed that today?

          If you don’t want people to respond to your takes then don’t post them in public forums. I am critiquing your stance. If it’s overly aggressive than I apologize for the tone.

            • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I can’t control that you saw my comments seconds after they were posted but before the 20-30s it takes for me to edit them. There is nothing i changed that drastically for you to imply I was being deceptive.

              Have a good one.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        None of those concerns are new in principle: AI is the current thing that makes people worry about corporate and government BS but corporate and government BS isn’t new.

        Then: The cat is out of the bag, you won’t be able to put it in again. If those things worry you the strategic move isn’t to hope that suddenly, out of pretty much nowhere, capitalism and authoritarianism will fall never to be seen again, but to a) try our best to get sensible regulations in place, the EU has done a good job IMO, and b) own the tech. As in: Develop and use tech and models that can be self-hosted, that enable people to have control over AI, instead of being beholden to what corporate or government actors deem we should be using. It’s FLOSS all over again.

        Or, to be an edgelord to some of the artists out there: If you don’t want your creative process to end up being dependent on Adobe’s AI stuff then help training models that aren’t owned by big CGI. No tech knowledge necessary, this would be about providing a trained eye as well as data (i.e. pictures) that allow the model to understand what it did wrong, according to your eye.

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I said:

          I don’t think these people should be locked up or all AI usage banned. But there is definitely a middle ground between absolute prohibition and no restrictions at all.

          I have used AI tools as a shooter/editor for years so I don’t need a lecture on this, and I did not say any of the concerns are new. Obviously, the implication is AI greatly enables all of these actions to a degree we’ve never seen before. Just like cell phones didn’t invent distracted driving but made it exponentially worse and necessitated more specific direction/intervention.