Comment

Comment on This new data poisoning tool lets artists fight back against generative AI

People don’t understand AI. Probably all articles I have read on it by mainstream media were somehow wrong. It often feels like reading a political journalist discussing about quantum mechanics.

My rule of thumb is: always assume that the articles on AI are wrong. I know it isn’t nice, but that’s the sad reality. Society is not ready for AI because too many few people understand AI. Even AI creators don’t fully understand AI (this is why you often hear about “emergent abilities” of models, it means “we really didn’t expect it and we don’t understand how this happened”)

source

Sort:hotnew top

joel_feila@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
By that logic humanity isnt ready for personal computers since few understand how they work.

source
- Zeth0s@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Kind of true. Check the law proposals on encryption around the world…
  
  Technology is difficult, most people don’t understand it, result is awful laws. AI is more difficult, because even creators don’t fully understand it (see emergent behaviors, i.e. capabilities that no one expected).
  
  source
  - joel_feila@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I read an article the other day about managers complaining about zoomers not even knowing how type on a keyboard.
    
    source
- GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  That was certainly true in the 90s. Mainstream journalism on computers back then was absolutely awful. I’d say that only changed in the mid-2000 or 2010s. Even today, tech literacy in journalism is pretty low outside of specialist outlets like, say, Ars.
  
  Today I see the same thing with new tech like AI.
  
  source
ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

Probably all articles I have read on it by mainstream media were somehow wrong. It often feels like reading a political journalist discussing about quantum mechanics.

Yeah, I view science/tech articles from sources without a tech background this way too. I expected more from this source given that it’s literally MIT Tech Review, much as I’d expect more from other tech/science-focused sources, albeit I’m aware those require scrutiny just as well (e.g. Popular Science, Nature, etc. have spotty records from what I gather).

Also regarding your last point, I’m increasingly convinced AI creators’ (or at least their business execs/spokespeople) are trying to have their cake and eat it too in terms of how much they claim to not know/understand how their creations’ work while also promoting how effective it is. On one hand, they genuinely don’t understand some of the results, but on the other, they do know enough of how it works to have an idea of how/why those results came about, however it’s to their advantage to pretend they don’t insofar as it may mitigate their liability/responsibility should the results lead to collateral damage/legal issues.

source