1245
Brian Eno: “The biggest problem about AI is not intrinsic to AI. It’s to do with the fact that it’s owned by the same few people” (musictech.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
140 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Oh, and it also hallucinates.

This is arguably a feature depending on how you use it. I'm absolutely not an AI acolyte. It's highly problematic in every step. Resource usage. Training using illegally obtained information. This wouldn't necessarily be an issue if people who aren't tech broligarchs weren't routinely getting their lives destroyed for this, and if the people creating the material being used for training also weren't being fucked....just capitalism things I guess. Attempts by capitalists to cut workers out of the cost/profit equation.

If you're using AI to make music, images or video... you're depending on those hallucinations.
I run a Stable Diffusion model on my laptop. It's kinda neat. I don't make things for a profit, and now that I've played with it a bit I'll likely delete it soon. I think there's room for people to locally host their own models, preferably trained with legally acquired data, to be used as a tool to assist with the creative process. The current monetisation model for AI is fuckin criminal....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Tell that to the man who was accused by Gen AI of having murdered his children.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ok? If you read what I said, you'll see that I'm not talking about using ChatGPT as an information source. I strongly believe that using LLMs as a search tool is incredibly stupid....for exactly reasons like it being so very confident when relaying inaccurate or completely fictional information.
    What I was trying to say, and I get that I may not have communicated that very well, was that Generative Machine Learning Algorithms might find a niche as creative process assistant tools. Not as a way to search for publicly available information on your neighbour or boss or partner. Not as a way to search for case law while researching the defence of your client in a lawsuit. And it should never be relied on to give accurate information about what colour the sky is, or the best ways to make a custard using gasoline.

    Does that clarify things a bit? Or do you want to carry on using an LLM in a way that has been shown to be unreliable, at best, as some sort of gotcha...when I wasn't talking about that as a viable use case?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    lol. I was just saying in another comment that lemmy users 1. Assume a level of knowledge of the person they are talking to or interacting with that may or may not be present in reality, and 2. Are often intentionally mean to the people they respond to so much so that they seem to take offense on purpose to even the most innocuous of comments, and here you are, downvoting my valid point, which is that regardless of whether we view it as a reliable information source, that's what it is being marketed as and results like this harm both the population using it, and the people who have found good uses for it. And no, I don't actually agree that it's good for creative processes as assistance tools and a lot of that has to do with how you view the creative process and how I view it differently. Any other tool at the very least has a known quantity of what went into it and Generative AI does not have that benefit and therefore is problematic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    and here you are, downvoting my valid point

    Wasn't me actually.

    valid point

    You weren't really making a point in line with what I was saying.

    regardless of whether we view it as a reliable information source, that's what it is being marketed as and results like this harm both the population using it, and the people who have found good uses for it. And no, I don't actually agree that it's good for creative processes as assistance tools and a lot of that has to do with how you view the creative process and how I view it differently. Any other tool at the very least has a known quantity of what went into it and Generative AI does not have that benefit and therefore is problematic.

    This is a really valid point, and if you had taken the time to actually write this out in your first comment, instead of "Tell that to the guy that was expecting factual information from a hallucination generator!" I wouldn't have reacted the way I did. And we'd be having a constructive conversation right now. Instead you made a snide remark, seemingly (personal opinion here, I probably can't read minds) intending it as an invalidation of what I was saying, and then being smug about my taking offence to you not contributing to the conversation and instead being kind of a dick.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not everything has to have a direct correlation to what you say in order to be valid or add to the conversation. You have a habit of ignoring parts of the conversation going around you in order to feel justified in whatever statements you make regardless of whether or not they are based in fact or speak to the conversation you're responding to and you are also doing the exact same thing to me that you're upset about (because why else would you go to a whole other post to "prove a point" about downvoting?). I'm not going to even try to justify to you what I said in this post or that one because I honestly don't think you care.

    It wasn't you (you claim), but it could have been and it still might be you on a separate account. I have no way of knowing.

    All in all, I said what I said. We will not get the benefits of Generative AI if we don't 1. deal with the problems that are coming from it, and 2. Stop trying to shoehorn it into everything. And that's the discussion that's happening here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    because why else would you go to a whole other post to "prove a point" about downvoting?
    It wasn't you (you claim)

    I do claim. I have an alt, didn't downvote you there either. Was just pointing out that you were also making assumptions. And it's all comments in the same thread, hardly me going to an entirely different post to prove a point.

    We will not get the benefits of Generative AI if we don't 1. deal with the problems that are coming from it, and 2. Stop trying to shoehorn it into everything. And that's the discussion that's happening here.

    I agree. And while I personally feel like there's already room for it in some people's workflow, it is very clearly problematic in many ways. As I had pointed out in my first comment.

    I'm not going to even try to justify to you what I said in this post or that one because I honestly don't think you care.

    I do actually! Might be hard to believe, but I reacted the way I did because I felt your first comment was reductive, and intentionally trying to invalidate and derail my comment without actually adding anything to the discussion. That made me angry because I want a discussion. Not because I want to be right, and fuck you for thinking differently.

    If you're willing to talk about your views and opinions, I'd be happy to continue talking. If you're just going to assume I don't care, and don't want to hear what other people think...then just block me and move on. 👍

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent