Because it’s a naive take. Technology can help as make the world a better place for all - standing in the way are greedy pigs and asshole, ignorant politicians.
AI, or rather LLMs, can barf out a lot of passable text quickly. That can be useful as a starting point for something useful, if a human mind is willing and able to review and repair it. It’s like having an idiot intern.
But the number of people who use LLMs in a way that reflects and understanding of their limitations is diminishingly small. Most people just don’t assume that something that looks valid needs to be fully and critically reviewed. That’s why we’ve had multiple cases of lawyers having ChatGPT write theis legal briefs based on hallucinated legal precedent.
show me that magic llm which doenst infringe the copyright of nearly everybody, which doesnt have an unprecedentet impact on the enviroment to train and run, which wont be used to cut of people from their income, which isnt owned by technocratic billionaire assholes, which isnt peddled and promoted by fascist goverments, which doesnt halluzinate, which isnt a blackbox, which actually works and doesnt fail at the simplest tasks sometimes, which doesnt infringe my privacy(allegedly tbf, but you know). the list goes on.
sure, sure technology itself isnt evil. but thats not hill i want to die on in case of llms. they’re problematic on so many levels. full stop. i dont think its a naive take to have some skepticism against this clusterfuck. potentially some technologies could make the world a better place. but llms dont fit into this category.
base@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Why not both?
0xD@infosec.pub 6 days ago
Because it’s a naive take. Technology can help as make the world a better place for all - standing in the way are greedy pigs and asshole, ignorant politicians.
“AI” isn’t the problem, our approach to it is.
deathbird@mander.xyz 6 days ago
Kinda sorta.
AI, or rather LLMs, can barf out a lot of passable text quickly. That can be useful as a starting point for something useful, if a human mind is willing and able to review and repair it. It’s like having an idiot intern.
But the number of people who use LLMs in a way that reflects and understanding of their limitations is diminishingly small. Most people just don’t assume that something that looks valid needs to be fully and critically reviewed. That’s why we’ve had multiple cases of lawyers having ChatGPT write theis legal briefs based on hallucinated legal precedent.
0xD@infosec.pub 6 days ago
That’s not a problem of the technology though, that’s human idiocy.
base@lemmy.world 6 days ago
show me that magic llm which doenst infringe the copyright of nearly everybody, which doesnt have an unprecedentet impact on the enviroment to train and run, which wont be used to cut of people from their income, which isnt owned by technocratic billionaire assholes, which isnt peddled and promoted by fascist goverments, which doesnt halluzinate, which isnt a blackbox, which actually works and doesnt fail at the simplest tasks sometimes, which doesnt infringe my privacy(allegedly tbf, but you know). the list goes on.
sure, sure technology itself isnt evil. but thats not hill i want to die on in case of llms. they’re problematic on so many levels. full stop. i dont think its a naive take to have some skepticism against this clusterfuck. potentially some technologies could make the world a better place. but llms dont fit into this category.