An AI could be demonstrably 30 times more accurate than a human in diagnosing a cancer on a scan Lemmy would still shit on it because it’s an AI :D.
On Reddit I knew that the subject of gun control was not allowed to be talked about. Now I embraced Lemmy and I can’t talk no matter what about AI. It’s just a taboo subject. Apparently some people want to reject the tech entirely and think it will somehow just magically stay out of their lives. A very naive dream.
So yeah Lemmy. Refuse the conversation, look away, I’m sure it will be fine.
Did I say that?
Show me the place where I said that. Show it to me.
Come on. Show me the place where I said everything related to AI is negative. Show me even a place where you could reasonably construe that’s what I meant.
If you’re talking about why we can’t have a conversation, take a long hard look in the fucking mirror you goddamn hypocrite.
You know that things can both harm and benefit you, right? That’s the whole idea behind the idiom “the pros outweigh the cons”.
If someone is making an argument about the cons of a thing, it’s insane to expect them to just list of a bunch of unrelated pros, and likewise it’s an unreasonable assumption to believe from that, that they don’t believe in the existence of any pros.
I think that LLMs cause significant harm, and we don’t have any harm mitigation in place to protect us. In light of the serious potential for widespread harm, the pros (of which there are some) dont really matter until we make serious progress in reducing the potential for harm.
I shouldn’t need this degree of nuance. People shouldn’t need to get warnings in the form of a short novel full of couched language. I’m not the only person in this conversation, the proponents are already presenting the pros. And people should be able to understand that.
When people were fighting against leaded gasoline, they shouldn’t need to “yes, it makes cars more fuel efficient and prevents potentially damaging engine knock, thereby reducing average maintenance costs” every time they speak about the harms. It is unreasonable to say that they were harming discourse by not acknowledging the benefits every time they cautioned against it’s use.
I don’t believe that you’re making a genuine argument, I believe you’re trying to stifle criticism by shifting the responsibility for nuance from it’s rightful place in the hands of the people selling and supporting a product with the potential for harm, onto the critics.
I have to agree here. Injecting ‘nuance’ is an easy way to derail a discussion so that the obvious harms of a thing get obscured. The discussion devolves into emotional reactions to some aspect of the ‘nuance’ and the original point is lost. And nothing changes, which suits the powers that be just fine.
Nuance is a powerful tool for maintaining the status quo by disrupting the conversation. Leave the nuance to the academics.
Effective messaging campaigns require message discipline and dead simple provocative points repeated endlessly for a generation or two to effect change, usually.
It’s just as insane for you to expect us to read between the line of a 4 line comment that only present AI as harmful.
If you want to say that AI is both good and bad, that’s fine but then say that. It doesn’t have to be a book about it. You could have juste said AI can be harmful or good and that’s fine. Don’t act as if i’m asking for something unreasonable. You said one negative thing in a 4 line comment and feel personally attacked that we are unable to guess what positive thing you see in AI.
An AI could be demonstrably 30 times more accurate than a human in diagnosing a cancer on a scan Lemmy would still shit on it because it’s an AI :D.
On Reddit I knew that the subject of gun control was not allowed to be talked about. Now I embraced Lemmy and I can’t talk no matter what about AI. It’s just a taboo subject. Apparently some people want to reject the tech entirely and think it will somehow just magically stay out of their lives. A very naive dream.
So yeah Lemmy. Refuse the conversation, look away, I’m sure it will be fine.
Think about your argument for a minute.
When has that ever been good advice?
So everything related to AI is negative ?
If so do you understand why we can’t have any conversation on the subject ?
Did I say that?
Show me the place where I said that. Show it to me.
Come on. Show me the place where I said everything related to AI is negative. Show me even a place where you could reasonably construe that’s what I meant.
If you’re talking about why we can’t have a conversation, take a long hard look in the fucking mirror you goddamn hypocrite.
First you should chill a bit.
So this thing will harm you. But you are not describing AI as only negative ?
You just say AI will harm you and suppose people assume you have positive thing to say about AI
Where is the nuance toward AI in your comment please show it to me.
You know that things can both harm and benefit you, right? That’s the whole idea behind the idiom “the pros outweigh the cons”.
If someone is making an argument about the cons of a thing, it’s insane to expect them to just list of a bunch of unrelated pros, and likewise it’s an unreasonable assumption to believe from that, that they don’t believe in the existence of any pros.
I think that LLMs cause significant harm, and we don’t have any harm mitigation in place to protect us. In light of the serious potential for widespread harm, the pros (of which there are some) dont really matter until we make serious progress in reducing the potential for harm.
I shouldn’t need this degree of nuance. People shouldn’t need to get warnings in the form of a short novel full of couched language. I’m not the only person in this conversation, the proponents are already presenting the pros. And people should be able to understand that.
When people were fighting against leaded gasoline, they shouldn’t need to “yes, it makes cars more fuel efficient and prevents potentially damaging engine knock, thereby reducing average maintenance costs” every time they speak about the harms. It is unreasonable to say that they were harming discourse by not acknowledging the benefits every time they cautioned against it’s use.
I don’t believe that you’re making a genuine argument, I believe you’re trying to stifle criticism by shifting the responsibility for nuance from it’s rightful place in the hands of the people selling and supporting a product with the potential for harm, onto the critics.
I have to agree here. Injecting ‘nuance’ is an easy way to derail a discussion so that the obvious harms of a thing get obscured. The discussion devolves into emotional reactions to some aspect of the ‘nuance’ and the original point is lost. And nothing changes, which suits the powers that be just fine.
Nuance is a powerful tool for maintaining the status quo by disrupting the conversation. Leave the nuance to the academics.
Effective messaging campaigns require message discipline and dead simple provocative points repeated endlessly for a generation or two to effect change, usually.
It’s just as insane for you to expect us to read between the line of a 4 line comment that only present AI as harmful.
If you want to say that AI is both good and bad, that’s fine but then say that. It doesn’t have to be a book about it. You could have juste said AI can be harmful or good and that’s fine. Don’t act as if i’m asking for something unreasonable. You said one negative thing in a 4 line comment and feel personally attacked that we are unable to guess what positive thing you see in AI.
lol, you literally put words in the original commenter’s mouth:
and now you’re incredulous about something similar being done to you? lame