• reddit_sux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      People are not averse to tech, they are averse to being treated like shit as compared to rich businesses. If copyright doesn’t apply to companies it must not apply to individuals.

      In that case most of I think will agree to LLMs learning from all the written stuff.

    • myliltoehurts@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      The issue isn’t with AI, it’s with how companies position it. When they claim it’ll do everything and solve all your issues and then it struggles with some tasks a 10 year old could do, it creates a very negative image.

      It also doesn’t help that they hallucinate with a lot of confidence and people use them as a solution, not as a tool - meaning they blindly accept the first answer that came out.

      If the creators of models made more reasonable claims and the models were generally able to convey their confidence in the answers they gave maybe the reception wouldn’t be so cold. But then there wouldn’t be hype and AI wouldn’t be actively shoved into everything.

      • Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I disagree with your take. I’ve found it extremely helpful in my life. I find using it and learning with it to be an enriching experience. I find following it’s development and seeing it grow to be exciting. I see the possibilities of all the positive things it could do for the future of humanity.

        I don’t think a 10 year old could explain subatomic particles and the fundamental forces of the universe to me. I don’t think they could refresh my memory of how to do geometry to help my son with his homework. I don’t think a 10 year old could write a program for me to keep track of all the ebooks I have saved to my hard drive.

        It’s fairly obvious what’s happening here. A bunch of people complaining about that newfangled thing they don’t understand or see the full potential of, just like for every new technology that has ever emerged. The automobile would never take off. Humans would never fly. TV was a fad. The Internet wouldn’t flourish. Rinse and repeat.

    • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      The world doesn’t allow us to disconnect tech and capitalism. Why should we be happy about the tech just for the techs sake? People aren’t adverse to the tech. They are against its use to further our exploitation.

        • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          Technological advances are supposed to improve peoples lives. Allow them to work less and enjoy things more often.

          It’s why we invented a wheel. It’s why we invented better weapons to hunt with.

          “Tech for techs sake” is enjoying the technology and ignoring its impact on people’s lives.

          When a society creates a massive sum of information accessible to all, trains new technology on data created by that society, and then a small subset of that society steals and uses that data to profit themselves and themselves alone; I don’t know what else you call that but exploitation.

          Advances in AI should make our lives better. Not worse. Because of our economic model we have decided that technological advances no longer benefit everyone, but hurt a majority of the population for the profits of a few.

          • Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            The AI is not the problem in this case. The economic model is. It is not an economic model suitable for the advancement of technology.

            • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Yes. That’s my point. But people that hate AI hate it because of how it is being used under capitalism. For a lot of people “it is easier image the end of the world than the end of capitalism”. Hence why they hate AI. They don’t hate it inherently.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      It’s not an opposition to tech. It’s an opposition to billionaires changing the rules whenever it benefits them, while the rest has to just sit with it.

      • Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        The billionaires are the ones with the resources to develop this tech. We could nationalize it, but then people would complain about that too for different reasons.

    • miridius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Yeah it’s crazy how intense the Lemmy hive mind is about some things. It’s basically a cult

        • miridius@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Having used reddit for many years i find the hive mind here to be even more extreme, especially around certain topics (all FOSS is good, all other tech is bad, etc)

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Certain topics will surely be hotter among our niche demographic here, I’m sure. But the behavior is human at the root, surely. There’s nowhere where I don’t see this type of behavior if there are enough people to exhibit it.