• YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Because LLMs are planet destroying bullshit artists built in the image of their bullshitting creators. They are wasteful and they are filling the internet with garbage. Literally making the apex of human achievement, the internet, useless with their spammy bullshit.

    • Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Because they will only be used my corporations to replace workers, furthering class divide, ultimately leading to a collapse in countries and economies. Jobs will be taken, and there will be no resources for the jobless. The future is darker than bleak should LLMs and AI be allowed to be used indeterminately by corporations.

      • JamesFire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        We should use them to replace workers, letting everyone work less and have more time to do what they want.

        We shouldn’t let corporations use them to replace workers, because workers won’t see any of the benefits.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          that won’t happen. technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less, it allowa you to work less for the same output. so you work the same hours but the expected output changes, and your productivity goes up while your wages stay the same.

          • JamesFire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            6 months ago

            technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less,

            It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?

                • pyre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  no, in response to human beings needing rest. the need for work hours was drastically reduced since, but nothing changed. corporations don’t care, they just want you to work until you die, no matter how much you contribute none of them is gonna say “you know what, that’s enough, maybe you should work less”. wage theft keeps getting worse.

                  • JamesFire@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Yes, but that’s not because technology doesn’t reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.

            • mriormro@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              6 months ago

              That wasn’t technology. It was the literal spilling of blood of workers and organizers fighting and dying for those rights.

              • JamesFire@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                And you think they just did it because?

                They obviously thought they deserved it, because… technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?

              • JamesFire@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.

                • nomous@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Stop after your first 4 words and you’d be correct but all your other words are just your imagination and you trying to rationalize what you’ve already said.

                  • JamesFire@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    Obviously I’m trying to rationalize what I already said, that’s how an argument works.

                    I am arguing that better technology reduces the need for working hours.

                    That’s it.

      • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        furthering class divide, ultimately leading to a collapse in countries and economies

        Might be the cynic in me but I don’t think that would be the worst outcome. Maybe it will finally be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for people to realize that being a highly replaceable worker drone wage slave isn’t really going anywhere for everyone except the top-0.001%.

    • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      because the sooner corporate meatheads clock that this shit is useless and doesn’t bring that hype money the sooner it dies, and that’d be a good thing because making shit up doesn’t require burning a square km of rainforest per query

      not that we need any of that shit anyway. the only things these plagiarism machines seem to be okayish at is mass manufacturing spam and disinfo, and while some adderral-fueled middle managers will try to replace real people with it, it will fail flat on this task (not that it ever stopped them)

      • lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think it sounds like there are huge gains to be made in energy efficiency instead.

        Energy costs money so datacenters would be glad to invest in better and more energy efficient hardware.

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            It can be helpful if you know how to use it though.

            I don’t use it myself a lot but quite a few at work use it and are very happy with chatgpt

    • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Because he wants to stop it from helping impoverished people live better lives and all the other advantages simply because it didn’t exist when.he was young and change scares him

      • nomous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Holy shit your assumption says a lot about you. How do you think AI is going to “help impoverished people live better lives” exactly?

        • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s fascinating to me that you genuinely don’t know, it shows not only do you have no active interest in working to benefit impoverished communities but you have no real knowledge of the conversations surrounding ai - but here you are throwing out your opion with the certainty of a zealot.

          If you had any interest or involvement in any aid or development project relating to the global south you’d be well aware that one of the biggest difficulties for those communities is access to information and education in their first language so a huge benefit of natural language computing would be very obvious to you.

          Also If you followed anything but knee-jerk anti-ai memes to try and develop an understand of this emerging tech you’d have without any doubt been exposed to the endless talking points on this subject, https://oxfordinsights.com/insights/data-and-power-ai-and-development-in-the-global-south/ is an interesting piece covering some of the current work happening on the language barrier problems i mentioned ai helping with.

          • nomous@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            he wants to stop it from helping impoverished people live better lives and all the other advantages simply because it didn’t exist when.he was young and change scares him

            That’s the part I take issue with, the weird probably-projecting assumption about people.

            Have fun with the holier-than-thou moral high ground attitude about AI though, shits laughable.

            • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I think you misunderstood the context, I’m not really saying that he actively wants to stop it helping poor people I’m saying that he doesn’t care about or consider the benefits to other people simply because he’s entirely focused on his own emotional response which stems from a fear of change.