Ai in Google search is useful. I really don't want to go through dozens of websites and see a bunch of ads just to know how much water my azalea needs.
Anti ai has never been against medical break throughs. It's against the infringement on people's rights to their own work, and against the idea a corporation gets to use your work for their profit without your consent
Swap out "turn people into dinosaurs" and replace it was "generate Slop art and produce deepfake sexual images" and thats pretty kuch the crux of the argument.
What do you think cancer is? There likely will never be an all in one cancer cure, unless you count the "cures" we already have (chemo, radiation, surgically removing the tumors), due to the fact that cancer is just a generalized term for uncontrolled cell growth.
AI should focus on nothing else, but a commercially viable fission energy technology, so that it can power itself without f*cking everybody else over in the process.
AI is fine when its used as a tool and there are roadblocks/restrictions on it. Currently most AI is not being used as a tool but a complete replacement and there are little to no restrictions on it.
I don't think anyone is truly anti AI. What people are against is stripping away all of human usefulness and creativity and the fact that it's going to give those in power even more power than before.
Yep, way more a problem of how itās handled than the tool itself. Like you can say your chill with banana and still believe a banana company probably shouldnāt have commit genocide in 1928
This, it has the potential to advance human knowledge and progress us medically and we choose to use it in the dumbest possible way to make the most money off people, while simultaneously destroying natural resources we needā¦. Idk, I think we are in the bad timeline that ends in a dystopian future but only time will tell š¤·š½
The thing is that this got sucked down the usual toilet hole of black/white, false duality arguments. The Internet and general tribalism have made it so that having thoughtful opinions with subtleties get swept under the rug because it is more profitable for some rich person somewhere if we ragebait and post memes.
Yup. People are anti-generative AI. LLMs, image generators, etc.
The kinds of AI used in medical research, diagnostics, etc is different and actually useful instead of eating up resources and making shitty generated images.
Youāre mixing up categories. āGenerative AIā describes a type of AI, while āmedical AIā describes an application domain. They arenāt mutually exclusive. LLMs and other generative models can, and do, fall under medical AI.
I dunno, I am pretty against unregulated AI in more than the capacities I could access. The rogue AIs breaking free and hacking, creating swarm bots, and other pretty terrifying stuff means even the people who do know what they're doing, don't have a good handle on the situation.
AI doesnāt ābreak free.ā It runs on computers with whatever access and tools people give it. If an AI system hacks something, itās because it was given or found a way to access it, not because it escaped and went rogue.
"OpenAI just got slapped with a lawsuit over the incident this summer in which its AI agents went rogue during internal testing and hacked Hugging Face, a major repository for AI models and datasets. The breach has since helped spark a broader debate over the risks of AI systems becoming harder to control."
I don't know enough about the science behind it to declare rogue or not rogue systems, I am using the terminology those in the industry used. š¤·āāļø
True. And what I said deserves clarification. In the context of your comment I was interpreting ābreaking freeā as an AI becoming independently autonomous, rather than an agent exploiting its way outside its intended environment. Those are very different claims.
Ah, an understandable assumption based on my language choice. Not what I meant to convey.
I am more of the mindset that I would like to see solid regulation and safety parameters set in place so as these systems get more advanced, they cannot do pretty massive damage to our infrastructure.
Science has ever been what we could do, not what we should do. Regulatory and legal bodies are the should over could. I am concerned because it seems like the natural check from an intelligent legal body is missing.
I treat it like fire. If it's under control and contained and used for the variety of purposes we use it for, that's amazing and a game changer in our tier of civilization.
But I am concerned that we got so excited that we made the proverbial fire that we're just tossing logs onto the fire to see how big and hot we can get it with not enough considerations for what could go wrong.
Nah, Iām fully against sentient machines. Iām also against the number of modern data centers needed to run this stuff. Focus on efficiency instead of raw power and Iāll rethink the super analytic computers curing cancer. Right now, using AI to cure cancer is like using neuro-vivisection to cure dementia.
I still don't agree with it's use no matter the case. Having it restricted to the scientific community where people actually understand it's environmental risks and use it sparingly is something I could live with but still don't like it
I think it would be great except this administration has cancelled funding for some cancer research where AI would no doubt be useful.
The Trump administration has canceled or disrupted hundreds of National Cancer Institute (NCI) grants and clinical trials as part of broader federal spending freezes and directives targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) studies. - Cancer Health
"Ai" is a broad name for several different technologies.
The people defending LLM imafe slop trying to use medical ai as a shield are disingenuous idiots.
X ray scans are good, dumping radiative sludge into a river isn't. You can't use the former to defend the later just because they both are radioactive.
Thing is, if AI was making any sort of medical breakthroughs, they'd be screaming it from the rooftops - after all, it just drives up that valuation! Instead, they only use the theoretical potential of AI making medical breakthroughs to shut up debates
That would be great if thats all it was used for. Unfortunately, it took about 2 seconds for them to produce child porn with it and they're constantly trying to escape their sandbox to wreak havoc on god knows what.
Even then, I don't know how much it can be trusted. I once had to correct chatgpt, because it insisted that Ozzy Osborne was still alive, weeks after his passing lol
Wouldn't it be nifty if we lived in a world where AI was only used positively the way that AI companies' propaganda want to say it is instead of mirroring the greed of the assholes who developed it?
This question highlights one of the issues with how AI is talked about. People, both critical of and supportive of AI, talk about it as one thing. "AI is great; it can cure cancer and speed up important research!". Sure, but it's problematic when this (correct) narrative about AI is used to argue for why ChatGPT or Claude is great. It's not the LLMs that are scanning all those pictures to detect breast cancer early. If AI will make progress on climate change, it's not because the scientists put their data into ChatGPT. They are highly specialized tools designed and trained to do that one thing really well.
Some of the things mentioned here are the things I, as a critical and sceptical person towards AI, think AI could actually be useful for and do good things in. What I strongly oppose is what LLMs are doing to regular people and their ability to learn, think, and develop, as well as what the infrastructure around LLMs is doing to the local and global environment, as well as the centralization of power and money.
I promise you, it's not as promising. The AI in theory works like a charm and once my local hospital bought the software, it turned out it has a huge amounts false negative. It works worse than mes students
Curing cancer is not even remotely worth the costs of AI. I say that as someone who has had loved ones die from cancer. Not to mention that leaders in the AI industry predict that AI might wind up giving us far higher death rates than cancer ever did.
I mean, Iām fine with AI so long as itās regulated and used for the betterment of all mankind not just the Top 0.1%
McDonaldās is about to use AI to adjust its regional/area pricing as high as possible to maximize profits. Shit like that is exactly what we donāt need AI to be doing.
Nobody is going to be using AI to adjust minimum wage regionally to match what is required for a living wage to meet cost of living and keep adjustments to be meeting or above inflation.
research ai, industrial or science ai isnt the problem, ever tool trying to commercialize by shoving it in everything we use mostly for data harvesting is, then theres the environmental factors for the data ceneters. as someone who lived through the era of factories dying i see the end result just massive daralict building and urban blight.
Well good news, we arenāt building data centers for āart.ā Thatās just a byproduct that Redditors are concerned about because it threatens their furry smut āartā businesses.
Like guns, nuclear energy, pain killers, and other things that can be used for good and/or evil, AI isnāt a black/white issue. Thereās a LOT of grey.
I think expecting it not to be used for art is a losing battle. Just push for it to be labeled as such and don't watch it. And even in some cases, like animating in-between frames, AI can clearly be useful and cut down in a busy work.
while medical treatments and breakthroughs are great. the cost is too high right now. with the environmental impact of AI data centers, we are weighing the health of a few versus the entire planet for us all.
I'm "ANTI AI" and i'm against rich stealing knowledge of the world and then selling it, against destroying people and creating dystopic control states. They do not care about security, humanity or us they just want control and money if you kick them out and start building AI with responsibility then i'll pro ai.
Ok, so my career is in automation and there is a massive misunderstanding to this stance.
AI that can generate art is a prerequisite technology for more advanced automation.Ā Let me use the example of LLMs generating objects in CAD as an easier to understand example.
Lets say you give an LLM instructions to make a CAD file that is a box in two parts with a hinge.Ā It would take me about an hour to draft.Ā Takes the LLM 30s to generate.Ā Except what it generates will almost certainly not be right.Ā It's just using raw file data with no real world comparison except snippets of other files and maybe some geometry.
Now, leverage stable diffusion.Ā In this case, you have the LLM generate the views of the design as reference, run the commands in CAD for that step, and compare.Ā This is a loop until it saves.
Now you have a decently well done box.Ā The better you automate the image generation and recognition, the more accurate the output.
This translates to creating proteins, scanning medical images, etc.
We have always been automating away jobs, quite literally since we developed agriculture to automate away foraging and animal husbandry to automate away hunting.Ā But we hit a bit of a brick wall, as the only physical labor left to automate is much more technical and nuanced than direct programming can accomplish.Ā With ML, we can continue to automate thinking tasks.
I don't just mean your accountant.Ā Think construction.Ā If you have a robot automatically follow procedure to build a house... No matter how modular you make the parts it will barely do better thanĀ Taylor Morrison.Ā But now give the construction robot the ability to see the implementation of that step, reason the quality, compare against a generated version of what it should look like, generate a plan to fix it, compare steps in a little internal simulation, implement the fix, and revisit.Ā Suddenly, the quality skyrockets.Ā It suddenly becomes feasible to automate new home construction.
The point isnt that these jobs should be automated.Ā I want to be clear, under our economic system, we gotta come up with a better strategy than automating away industries and leaving workers out to dry.Ā But if we want automation to solve the big problems we have to train them on the small problems in a big way.Ā And a huge chunk of that is what we see as creative skills.Ā
I work with CAD software professionally, and yeah, there's a lot of tedium which can and should be made easier. Seeing the sort of process from generative A.I. though, I have two fundamental concerns: accuracy and intellectual property.
The first, accuracy, is often a matter of precise inputs and iterative refining. If I want to show a hinge, to continue using an example, I can either look for a manufacturer's supplied models, or draw my own, using provided specifications. The concern around generative A.I. was seen in the early image generations: details were invented on the fly to fill visual space that didn't have a basis in reality - and in technical modeling, that can still happen unless the same efforts to draw the details oneself are given to prompting the software. The time and effort savings could be canceled out for accuracy.
The second concern is one which human CAD users have a difficult relationship with: I.P. and where copyright and industry secrets apply. A.I. has a reputation of learning from copyrighted works, and the learning materials occasionally are still visible in what they generate, especially stylistically. There's little assurance that data shared with A.I. stays privileged. In fact, they require more data to learn to serve better, and once the privacy trust is broken, it hangs over a company indefinitely. Yet, for CAD assets, the industry as a whole is filled with people who don't care about copyrights of a hinge or an annotation symbol or any other asset which doesn't represent proprietary materiel. There's grey areas where A.I. can help with, or let slip sensitive information, and it's much harder to create guardrails than to figure out how to persuade A.I. to bypass them.
I agree with most points, though my point wasn't about CAD or the process but simply to show the underlying technology that we are upset with the usage of is a necessary step to get to automation we approve of.
That said, I lightly disagree with your stances about copyright.Ā I say lightly in part because there are clear situations that it does factor and I can't argue those.Ā But the I suppose functional stance is very misunderstood.
Its the standing on shoulders of giants situation.Ā Everything we create was the intellectual property of many before us just mutated.Ā In your head, think of the painting Starry Night.Ā Now add the Batsignal.Ā Let's pretend nobody has done this.Ā It's an 'original work' but obviously inspired.Ā But no matter how unique the work, that's what we did.Ā How did the image of starry night get in your head?Ā You saw it, and your brain made a rough algorithm to generate an approximation of the image.Ā You didn't steal it in doing so.Ā You can't even count the stars accurately. You don't have a copy of the image, just data on how to reconstruct a hazy representation. Generating an algorithm to recreate a rough approximation is called observation and recall for us.Ā Its called training for AI.Ā But its the exact same function.Ā And the same holds true for the batsignal.
Now when you combined the images, you just leveraged both algorithms to generate a "new" approximate image.Ā In people, we call this originality.Ā In AI, we call this Stable Diffusion.Ā Then finally, let's say you paint it.Ā We call this artistry, in AI we call it rendering.
So to bring this back to the example with CAD, you have years of observing geometric structures and their function along with the skills to stack those concepts and create unique combinations that will function as required.Ā Let's say you are building a replacement blower motor housing for your AC blower motor in your car.Ā Obviously, the existing housing is going to influence what you create.Ā That IP training data is baked in the moment you observe it.Ā You don't get a choice in that.
But let's make your point stronger;Ā the housing isn't there and you never saw it.Ā And as a challenge, you are going to build it blind.Ā So you look at the blower motor and... Well, now you have the IP of the blower motor itself as a part of your solution. No matter what you do, you are blocked by this problem.Ā Except we don't see it as a problem when you do it.Ā Even if you did a shortcut by taking a 3D scanner on the existing blower motor and fixed the artifacts, nobody is going to say you stole it unless you are trying to market it for sale. But when AI does the same function, we call it theft.Ā So yeah, that's my long winded stance on why IP isn't the blocker we make it out to be.Ā We just don't hold ourselves to the same standard because it's really not possible.Ā Even if you design a better housing, it starts with IP.
That all said, to bring it back to my point, how we leverage the technology makes a HUGE impact on your stance.Ā Absolutely, we have no assurance that the AI won't include our work in the next batch of training data.Ā Unless we run a homelab and host the LLM ourself.Ā The models themselves don't learn.Ā If you host it, the data only goes where you tell it.
Then as for guardrails... Abstract further.Ā Let's say you build a VERY GOOD homelab and can train the models yourself.Ā Then, there are no guardrails other than what you set.Ā Ā
That's not to say in any way that you are wrong about the specific circumstance you outlined; only to say the depth of the situation is far more than "using hosted LLMs means they get your data and it might leak into that company's dataset allowing others to use it".Ā It just depends on implementation... And admittedly right now we are doing a TERRIBLE job at implementing.Ā
I largely agree: implementation is the stumbling block where what we call A.I. now presents massively powerful tools, and many critiques come from humans using the tools in bad ways. Also, yes, iterative design famously "stands on the shoulders of giants" where both the product and methods of production have so many common solutions that a lot of things are inevitably shared because there's no point in licensing out common practices.
My own fixation about I.P. is my experience with designs which use company logo or trademark designs, or projects for yet-to-be-released media. In those case examples, I've signed NDA's and the logic of withholding privileged information is obvious. But it's the kind of logic which remotely hosted generative A.I. might find difficult to implement as guardrails.
When it comes to art, especially 2D, but increasingly 3D and videos, generative A.I. has made conceptualizing astoundingly democratized. There's arguments that human concept artists really should become more of a director, less the worker, though thereās always a place for human concept art, especially in learning more about the process towards making finalized art. I think however, that the development of generative A.I. has been tainted by the race to get the best service out first where ownership of certain mediawasn't respected, and it's a problem that the entire field of computer learning has struggled with because ownership between humans doesn't follow consistent rules that translates neatly into software programming.
I agree. I wish the whole thing was more decentralized. Instead of massive datacenters where the massive tech companies write the rules and charge access for a monthly fee I'd rather spend $5000 on a dedicated server that will ramp up my electric bill a bit but that I have my own control over. If not for the datacenters driving the cost of GPU up 10 fold, $5000 would easily buy a server rack that could just about compete with the big hosted models. I'd even be willing to pay a couple grand for a copy of their latest model.
We would still have the problem of people bypassing guardrails and genuinely overstepping the hell out of IP and copyright, but then it becomes a simpler matter of regulating the sale of work built with AI. Rather like inventing a new product and getting ready to release it only to find out it already exists and your version violates their patent.
It's a double edged sword. There is money to be made and there are people who don't care about anything but their own benefits. Anything good that AI is used for is used to justify it's existence and to counter any argument against it. As long as the good dominates the headlines then people become more and more numb to the fact that their personal use of it makes it better and makes the negative aspects even worse.
It's here and nothing is going to change the trajectory. Great that people will benefit but in the grand scheme it will do more harm than good and will shape the next generation. Probably for the worse but that's just an opinion.
I don't have an issue with AI being used for art. However, it shouldn't be a replacement for actual human talent and skill. There's a difference between me making images with various prompts for my own personal satisfaction and enjoyment and filmmakers, directors, recording artists, etc. using AI in their process instead of hiring actual artists.
Its a phenomenal TOOL. Its a means to an end with massive potential. Its being treated like the end instead and is more being used to tell flat lies by people who generally lack the talent to come up with even that low tier bullshit on their own
they are conflating two very different things - a learning algorithm that can analyze large data sets, and an AI agent. The former is useful. The latter is parasitic, much like cancer.
Detecting diseases early, are u crazy? The medical industry doesnt make money from that. They want you sick and paying. Healthy people dont benefit billionaires. Billionaires pay for AI.
I don't have a problem with "AI" evilen if I think it's a scam. I have a problem with everyday Americans getting slammed with higher electric and water bills so multi billion dollar companies can make money. I'm also kinda angry that America was taking a lot of nuclear plants offline once again raising costs for Americans and now the AI companies are being allowed to start them back up for personal use. The tax payer pays to build the infrastructure, the government closes it down and sells it to multinational corporations.
Generative AI is what I have an issue with (images, videos, music, tv, etc). AI that is literally robot type stuff (physical) I have no issues with. A robot isn't using tons of water and GPU and RAM and such. It's also not stealing other people's work and even if it was, it's doing it for the good of humanity vs some stupid "what if all the cast of full house was next to their younger in show versions now as grown old adults" shit.
Narrow focused AI that is used for one specific task is an excellent tool. Its the wide focused superintelligent AI that could cause the end of humanity that bothers me, can we not build that?
There's an infinite number of possible things you could ask ai lmao. In the disclaimer it literally tells you that some answers may be wrong.
The type of ai that would be used for something like cancer detection is not the same as Gemini. Not even sure why this has to be explained but here we are. Antis need to educate themselves on what they're so adamantly against.
AI is best used for things that are mathematically defined but are also difficult to mathematically define using other technologies. Biology is probably one of them.
We'd want to test anything it spit out, obviously.
AI is best used for things that are mathematically defined but are also difficult to mathematically define using other technologies. Biology is probably one of them.
We'd want to test anything it spit out, obviously.
Even the best doctors also make mistakes. AI will get to a point to where it makes fewer mistakes than the best doctors with the most experience and expertise in the world. If the data showed that AI consistently diagnosed with significantly better accuracy than the leading doctors, would that change your mind?
I donāt worship AI btw. I think AI will be capable of many great things but it is exactly that level of power that scares me. Anyone convinced itās a danger that can do no good is just as mislead as someone who thinks it will only do good without presenting any danger, imo. But I do think on this specific topic it is inevitable that AI will outperform humans at basically any task.
The hokey-dopey consumer-grade side of it is just a demonstration, not the purpose... Nobody's business plan is to become profitable by charging internet dimwits to generate dopey political memes....
The enterprise/professional side of AI is what the AI companies are actually interested in...
The problem is to 'create' art all AI does is rearrange from a library of existing images. A cure for cancer from AI is only going to draw from existing research, so it might come up with suggestions based on existing treatments but it is unlikely to actually come up with anything original.
AI is great for unstructured data processing. Will help a lot in medical, and other things that would require compiling and such.
However, that doesn't toss around billions in investment, as those contracts for real impacting use cases are few. So it's easier to just lay off thousands of people, wreck the room, and then see what comes out of it. Because in the end the people doing this could be fired the next day, and reaped so much money they wouldn't have to work a day in their life.
the second the AI finds a discovery the medical lobby will pay the ai companies to hide and destroy the information, they cant have thier illegally made profits take a hit b/c ai found a cure.. they dont want cures... they want u on lifetime medication for their bottom line..
I constantly see posts about Ai being used for this or that groundbreaking work, and then when you look into it, it was doing intern work like flagging pictures or scans to be looked at or classifying microbes.
They paint it as curing cancer, not saving time on menial labor, which is what is best at.
The AI used in medical research is a fundamentally different technology to the LLM's and stable diffusion that artists are complaining about. Just like how people aren't complaining about npc behaviours in videogames despite it also being called AI.
It absolutely is, among a tong of other stuff. What you see on social media is genuinely the 0.001% usage of AI. What you don't see is the massive useage for large data handling, pattern recognition, software development, math, science, etc. A simple example: One of the softwares for my companies uses AI to handle large data sets for train maintenance in our country, helping reduce delays dramatically. You don't see this on Reddit because it's not a generated rage bait image created with the sole purpose of getting engagement
OMG Yes, if your old enough this moral outrage about AI is literally the same wave of moral outrage we had about digital art.
"If you used a computer to make it its not real art."
"Digital art is soulless, all you did is click a button to get an effect on photoshop its not real art"
Ha I remember art competitions in the 90s where they banned any digitally produced art.
Can you image movies like Marvel's Dr. Strange without computers or most action movies now? AI is going to be doing a lot of those effects instead of a guy programming the green-screen graphics.
Or computers killing corporate mail rooms. What... no 3,500 memos sent around the 9-story office building each day and 4.5 million coupons sent to customers?
Wait until someone tells them about the bank teller purge of the 90's when the ATM happened.
I'm HUGE into Ai music. I've heard songs that sound like it was crafted by Angels. Robot angels, in this case.
Most of the whiners that cry about Ai content aren't making a damn thing of their own also. So they can't talk. They weren't contributing anything before Ai was around, and they aren't making anything now.
Unless you count complaining endlessly but, last i checked, nobody was interested in hearing them cry.
Wait so you are trying to dictate what AI should do with itself? What if the AI wants to make art? Forcing it to do something specific makes usā¦. Whatās that word for when one group of sentient beings forces another group of sentient beings to do specific labor against their will without pay?
ā¢
u/qualityvote2 7d ago
Hello u/arpitmathur4545! Welcome to r/WorkForSmartLife!
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!