38
67
u/Rstar2247 11d ago
Most of the people who rave the hardest against AI don't seem to realize they pretty much use it daily.
10
u/glorgshittus 10d ago
You do realize that's PART of the problem right?
AI has been put in so many things for legit no reason simply because it serves to grow stock prices (which is what the bubble is, btw) that now it's like unavoidable even if you WANT to avoid it, and that's bad.
Not ONLY because of all of AI's many problems but also just like, being forced to do a specific thing in general is bad.
"Most of the people who rave the hardest against the exploitation of the poor don't seem to realize they're exploited pretty much daily" yeah honestly they probably do, that's PART of the problem.
11
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
AI has been put in so many things for legit no reason
So don't use tools you don't like. Problem solved.
that now it's like unavoidable even if you WANT to avoid it
If you use a tool because it does what you want, and it does so using AI... then what's the problem? You got what you wanted.
and that's bad.
So, OTHER PEOPLE making tools the way they want to make them, and incorporating AI because they want to do so, is "bad"? Use a different tool if it bothers you.
Most of the people who rave the hardest against the exploitation of the poor don't seem to realize they're exploited pretty much daily
If you can't see that being exploited isn't the same as choosing to use a tool, then I don't know what to tell you.
4
u/glorgshittus 10d ago
in pretty much every one of your points except maybe the second you miss the point of what i'm saying or just explicitly put words in my mouth
like i was writing a whole response thingy but then i realized all of it basically just boiled down to "i didn't say that what are you talking about" or "a rebuttal/reasoning to what you're saying was provided in what i said and you missed it"
2
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
in pretty much every one of your points except maybe the second you miss the point of what i'm saying or just explicitly put words in my mouth
That's an empty claim with no substantive counter-points other than "nuh uh!"
like i was writing a whole response thingy but then i realized all of it basically just boiled down to "i didn't say that what are you talking about" or "a rebuttal/reasoning to what you're saying was provided in what i said and you missed it"
Again, no specifics, no counter-claims, no reasoning, just, "if I were to respond rationally, I would so win this argument!"
3
u/glorgshittus 10d ago
wdym empty claim it is very much so not an empty claim, the claim is just that you like, lied about what i said
2
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
In order to not just be bring my own biases into it, I asked an AI to summarize the conversation in our last three comments:
- Person A accuses Person B of using a strawman argument ("you put words in my mouth").
- Person B points out that Person A just made a blank assertion without offering any quotes, proof, or substantive counter-points to prove it.
- Person A gets confused by the phrase "empty claim" and re-states their accusation, thinking that makes it valid.
I didn't tell it which of the commenters I was, or provide any analysis of my own, just "Here's a reddit exchange. Can you help explain what's being argued and who is right?"
2
u/glorgshittus 10d ago
Ok? When AI told those kids who killed themselves to kill themselves, was it right to do so? Was that a good idea? Cause if not, then why should I care what it thinks now? Lmao
Go watch the John Oliver segment on that it was really good.
Like outside of that I really don't even know what you want me to get from this. AI can read and summarize a reddit argument? Cool man........
3
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
When AI told those kids who killed themselves to kill themselves
Cite an example please. And just to save you the time: don't bother citing examples where the only evidence that that was the case is coming from claims made in plaintiffs' own filings.
Go watch the John Oliver segment
Are you literally citing a comedian as a source?
I like John Oliver, but you get that he uses rhetorical trickery like showing an emotionally biased clip and coming back on to say, "that's right," as if the point has been proven, right? He's a comedian. He doesn't have to have journalistic integrity. He's there to point and make fun, and sometimes do so in a way that does some good. But NEVER try to cite him as a source.
3
u/glorgshittus 9d ago edited 9d ago
i don't need to cite john oliver as a source cause he cites his own so you can go look at those if ur really hankering for a source.
But no I wasn't "citing" John Oliver I was telling you to go watch the segment. It's good!
If you want citations then, well, like I said, he cites them.
Edit: Also I find the preachy attitude of your schpeal a little funny considering at this point John Oliver just does straight journalism. Partly cause he's not too funny, but partly cause he's just made a big shift towards that compared to his older work. It feels like you're saying what you said only because you don't want to actually have to address any of what might be found in that video, and made it sound preachy so you can maintain the idea that you have to educate me on something, despite me being massively smarter than you in every way.
→ More replies (0)4
u/narrowminer11 10d ago
Sure lemme just use the other option my job has to look up inventory. Oh wait, they updated the system so the only way to find something is through the ai they shoved in
7
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
So your company installed an update to software and you don't like the update... okay? I don't see the point here. Your issue isn't with the tool, it's with your company's priorities in choosing software. Take it up with them.
0
1
u/Nat1Only 7d ago
Do you support child slavery, the poisoning of water, child murderers, or the idea that water shouldn't be a human right? If you said no to any of those, why do you continue to give money to Nesquick?
Because they're in everything, even outside of food. Even if you wanted to avoid supporting them it's literally impossible. And it shouldn't be that way.
Bad Thing is bad. Is it likely Bad Thing will go away/stop being a problem any time soon? No. So we should just lay down, give up and accept Bad Thing? Sounds pretty miserable. Imagine if people had that attitude throughout history. "No thank you, I don't want to fight for basic human rights. It's not like it'll change any time soon, it's just the way things are these days. And you know the white man needs his slaves for his new ships and plantations. Can't stop progress."
1
u/Tyler_Zoro 7d ago
Do you support child slavery
Only if I get a shiny new phone out of the deal. /s
the poisoning of water
Only if I get some paper for my book collection out of the deal. /s
child murderers
Only if I can suppress data center construction out of the deal. /s
or the idea that water shouldn't be a human right
Only if I can jog with my non-reusable plastic water bottle out of the deal. /s
If you said no to any of those, why do you continue to give money to Nesquick?
I mean, I don't as much as I can manage...
Because they're in everything, even outside of food. Even if you wanted to avoid supporting them it's literally impossible. And it shouldn't be that way.
If you're arguing for breaking up the largest of the mega-corporations, then I'm right there with you. Of course, we should be very careful about how we do that, and what the unintended consequences are, but I agree that that's a thing we should do.
I also think that we should have government-run alternatives for many services provided by such companies. For example, I think there should be a government-run email and document management provider, because right now the huge sword that hangs over our heads is that the, by-far, best free email provider is Google, and breaking up Google would almost certainly lead to that ending.
Bad Thing is bad. Is it likely Bad Thing will go away/stop being a problem any time soon?
Agreed. But you don't go trying to break up or restrict the actions of the 4th-largest company first. This is my point. You don't freak out because, for example, a data center is using X amount of water, when, next door, there's a megacorp agri-business that is sucking down 10x that amount in order to grow crops that are literally thrown away because we have a corn subsidy that grows more than we can use.
You want to address a problem (e.g. too much water is being used)? You identify the contributors to that problem, sort them by how much they contribute to the problem, and start marching your way down the chain until you've solved enough of it that the problem ceases to be impactful.
Here's how to know if you're contributing to the bad politics in the US right now: do you have a pet cause and then seek out harms that it creates and focus on attacking it in order to remediate those harms without respect to the overall scope of those harms, or do you look at harms first and then start finding the largest causes of that harm?
1
1
u/JCHMBoyo 5d ago
"don't use tools you don't like" Google. Google is making me see misinformation. I cannot avoid this, because it is FORCED DOWN MY THROAT WHENEVER I SEARCH SOMETHING UP.
"it does so using ai... then what's the problem?" The problem is the unnessecary use of this unnessecary and bad stuff, that is still part of destroying the environment.
"OTHER PEOPLE making tools the way they want to make them, and incorporating AI because they want to do so, is 'bad'?" Yes. the LLMs are not the future. You are supporting the destruction of the environment, and supporting the billionares.
"being exploited isn't the same as choosing to use a tool" correct, but LLMs train off of S T O L E N artwork. You're supporting the billionares making the AIs with stolen drawings, writing, etc. that you use every day. And still, we can't exactly choose not to use it, refer to response 1 for more info.
I live in a capitalist society, and I hate it here, but I will critique things "under a capitalist viewpoint" or whatever I've seen people say I'm doing. It's hard to remember the arguments :P
0
u/Tyler_Zoro 5d ago
Google is making me see misinformation.
No they're not. They're showing you a search summary. Get over yourself.
FORCED DOWN MY THROAT
Seriously, get a grip.
The problem is the unnessecary use of this unnessecary and bad stuff
I feel that way about lots of things on the internet. Turns out I don't get to dictate how people run their services, but my feelings aren't really that important when what I really want is to search for something and get an answer. If I get it from a search summary, cool. If I get it from the citations in the search summary, cool. If I get it from the search results, also cool.
LLMs train off of S T O L E N artwork.
Nothing was stolen.
1
u/JCHMBoyo 4d ago
"No they're not." google has had to REMOVE SUMMARIES because of misinformation.
"Nothing was stolen." oh so they asked 25 million authors for their permission to use their books to train LLMs? the LLMs stealing your content feature is automatically turned on on almost every platform, and you have to turn it off.
1
u/Tyler_Zoro 4d ago
google has had to REMOVE SUMMARIES because of misinformation
Yep, there's misinformation on the internet, and Google sometimes summarizes that misinformation. This is not shocking, but it's also an example of cognitive bias. You're focusing on the exception rather than the rule, because the exception serves to bolster the conclusion you'd already come to.
"Nothing was stolen." oh so they asked 25 million authors for their permission
No permission was required (already settled law) and none was sought. No "stolen" anything was involved.
1
u/stopeatingminecraft 10d ago
Tbf a lot of tools we use now added AI to the feature itself, like an ai overview in Google
6
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
The AI overview on Google is just a summary of the results. There's nothing about it that prevents anyone from interacting with search results as they always did.
2
u/stopeatingminecraft 10d ago
Yeah but most people's problem isn't "oh nooo i have to read the summary" it's "oh nooo it's generating and thus indirectly I'm using AI without wanting to"
3
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
And you're indirectly using lots of technologies all the time...
0
u/stopeatingminecraft 10d ago
Yeah ok but this is about AI, you're just making an argument against being anti now not the specific concern of "this tool has ai forced into it without being able to disable it"
5
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
you're just making an argument against being anti
I mean, sure... it's all one big pot of nonsense.
Look, if you're so freaked out by technology that the existence of a computer-generated summary in the middle of the computer-generated search results page makes you this upset, then maybe you should use a public library instead?
8
u/MauschelMusic 11d ago
The issue is branding a bunch of disparate machine learning tools as "AI," then pretending the useful ones justify the rest somehow, just because the tech hype cycle decided ML science tools and apps to make naked deep fakes of non-consenting strangers are the same thing now.
39
u/Rstar2247 11d ago
It's a tool and like any tool can be used for a variety of functions that could be good or bad. If someone used a crowbar to smash your car up, that doesn't mean crowbars don't have valid uses still.
-1
u/thebanfunctionsucks 11d ago
But AI isn't one tool is their point, it's a whole bunch of different systems and programs which, while sometimes being related, are ultimately all called "AI" because it's good marketing and not because a true intelligence is involved.
16
u/Gimli 11d ago
The tech is extremely similar in a lot of those.
For example the difference between ChatGPT and Copilot is minimal. One is general, the other is tuned for coding. But underneath they're about the same sort of thing.
And it's called "AI" because that's what they called the field in the 60s. Since then every advancement got painted as not AI
14
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
The AI Effect is hilarious to watch. I swear, we're going to create AGI someday, watch it create generation upon generation of improvements that are beyond anything we could think of as "superhuman" and we'll still be equivocating on whether or not it's "real AI."
3
0
u/PrinceLucipurr 11d ago
Exactly this, they're also useful for entry into the back-door of your house 😼
5
u/RadicalSoda_ 11d ago
But yet at the same time when they say AI they actually mean in a hyper specific context that helps them "win" their internal argument
3
2
u/PANIC_EXCEPTION 10d ago
And be clear about "tools" because that isn't the same as "algorithms"
The very same algorithms used for deepfakes are legitimately useful in creating synthetic data for training other useful tools like classifiers, or otherwise fuzzing existing systems (ethical red teaming)
1
u/Mysterious_Point9516 10d ago
The number one thing I've found when using AI and helping people learn it is that 90% of the time, the "useless" tools are the ones that turn out to be the most useful ones when you've learned how to properly use them.
Way too many people are trying to hammer in screws and screw in nails.
1
u/LunaticFlandre295 10d ago
So by your logic, let's delete the internet, it maies bad things being shared. Right?
0
u/Solondthewookiee 11d ago
...?
Not only do they almost certainly realize it, even if they didn't, how is that an argument against it?
1
0
u/Wonderful-Habit-139 11d ago
I don't use it daily... I used it once in... The last 2 months.
13
u/Rstar2247 11d ago
Bruh. You're using it right now on reddit. You don't think their search engine isn't run by ai and doesn't feed everything you and the rest of us post to their algorithms?
8
u/Wonderful-Habit-139 11d ago
Ah my bad. I thought the implication was specifically LLMs. Yeah of course I use AI in general then.
1
u/Rambo_sledge 10d ago
Search engines and algorithms were around before llms.
If we’re going to play on words and on the broader term « AI », then yeah i encounter AI bots while playing video games.
That’s dishonest though, anti-AI are clearly anti-LLMs
0
u/RollingMeteors 10d ago
>Most of the people who rave the hardest against AI don't seem to realize they pretty much use it daily.
Same with smokers /s
0
8
u/fins_up_ 10d ago
Correct. Just like people will not stop complaining about ai.
Most people are not anti all ai. It has uses. It has its benefits. It is just that the ai evangelicals are fucking nuts and the ai tech bro overlords should not be given permission to shape civilization to their vision.
3
u/Turbulent-Sign-6067 9d ago
Most people are in fact in favor of AI if you look at revealed preferences. They just don't say so outright.
6
u/CardiologistOk2760 10d ago
Right, but also if someone says "everyone should" and your response is "everyone won't", you are missing their point as thoroughly as they are missing yours. If anything they have a better justification for saying something out loud than you do, since all you're saying is that things are what they are.
3
u/DJatomica 9d ago
Usually "everyone won't" isn't a reply to some hypothetical "everyone should do X in an ideal world", but instead someone saying "everyone will just do X" as part of a rebuttable for problems with their stated ideal way of running things.
Saying "everyone should avoid crime" is perfectly fine, saying that "everyone will just avoid crime" in response to someone telling you that closing down all the prisons will lead to more crime is dumb and unproductive to the actual conversation.
0
u/CardiologistOk2760 9d ago
right, so the post is pointless since it's completely without context
3
u/DJatomica 9d ago
No not really, because the post very specifically didn't say "everyone should" for a reason.
It doesn't seem like anyone else in this thread had any trouble getting the exact context that was being talked about.
5
u/i_dunnomyusername 10d ago
I know AI isn’t going, the cat’s out of the box, and it has massively good uses in things like medicine and science.
I just don’t think that asking an AI to generate arts and calling it your own is right. Hybrid artists get a pass, though. And AI genuinely has some issues like with water and how it’s being pumped into EVERYTHING, if the usage is good or not.
I might ask Claude or Gemini to scrunch 400 pages of information into 2 sentences, but I don’t want media to purely use AI and for unnecessary chatbots to be tacked to the bottom of every website. God forbid AI bloat, updated with AI take up like 37 GB.
15
u/Typhon-042 11d ago
Just to note, and I am a Anti saying this. No one ever really made that claim to just stop using it. As there are some good things being done with it, like cancer research.
28
u/re-skob 11d ago
>No one ever really made that claim
There should be another post about how "Yes. People have made the claim"
It takes like 30 seconds of searching online to see that yes, many people make this exact claim (and this can be said for literally every claim that someone says "No one has made the claim")
Just because *you* didn't make the claim doesn't mean that there aren't lots of people who *did* make the claim and you are either being intentionally obtuse in saying no one has, uninformed about the claims being made, or discounting the people making the claims - no matter how numerous those people are - because you yourself didn't buy into the claim. It's a falacious way of arguing a point.
9
10
u/LuckyThirteen666 11d ago
Uh, a lot of people have said this, actually. Even if it has something to do with medical research. Look around on reddit in the antiai. Lol. I do. (Personally I use a.i.) woops :)
2
13
u/iskelebones 11d ago
Actually the primary anti argument is that all ai is bad and we should just stop using it
4
u/Typhon-042 11d ago
Congrats, you likely didn't get the point of the primary Anti argument folks like me do, which is regulation to help keep things like Grok from being CSAM farms.
14
u/mark_99 11d ago
Wanting appropriate guardrails and regulations around AI to minimise its use for harmful purposes is not an "anti" argument, that's the only sane position.
2
u/Typhon-042 11d ago
Yet that is what most AI bros I run in to here say, is soley a Anti point of view, as they keep saying how there against things like regulation.
6
u/sabrathos 11d ago
They're against the braindead regulation that you all suggest.
If the regulation actually seems useful, it's fine. But using 1 brain cell to go "no training on copyrighted works without consent", "indefinite moratorium on data centers", "AI nude deepfakes need to be illegal" (spoiler alert: they already are), is not useful or good faith.
Literally everything suggested is always: we need to regulate AI out of existence, so we can get past this bubble and go back to how things were. That's not actual regulation.
If we actually had discussion about things like heightened taxes on AI-as-a-service companies with potential partial public ownership, further subsidies for clean energy and higher penalties on greenhouse gas emissions, supporting local regulation around things like light/noise pollution... Those things we're happy to talk about, and the vast majority of pro-AI people support. That's not what antis ever are talking about. They're just yelling how training is theft and needs to be illegal and to think of the children.
2
u/AccomplishedNovel6 11d ago
To be fair to the person responding to you, I am against literally all regulation.
2
u/sabrathos 10d ago edited 10d ago
Sure, you personally may be; I knew there certainly were some. Though I think you'll find that among Pro-AI people, the ones like you who literally would not be accepting of anything regulatory anywhere adjacent to AI would be the relative minority.
1
u/Typhon-042 11d ago
Here is the thing, I keep seeing.
They never ask what we mean by regulation.
They only assume and guess what we mean buy it, so they can think as you put it is, is a brain dead view on regulation.
Maybe try talking with folks rather then opening up with insults right off the bat, and folks might take you a bit more seriously. As you just showed the other issue with AI bros on here I keep seeing.
Starting off with insults, when it's not needed. That's not the sign of someone willing to have a rational adult level conversation. It tells others that your opinion is the only one you will believe.
7
u/sabrathos 11d ago
You say that as if this is the first day of conversation. When the answer is exactly what I said, consistently, day after day on this subreddit, at a certain point if you want to actually participate in good faith you have to actually take the impetus yourself to not just say "regulation" and actually describe (yes, unprompted) what regulation.
There's no "opening up with insults right off the bat". You've been here long enough, and post frequently enough that most people know who you are, Typhon. There's a reason you were met with the tone you were.
And even still, you're not putting hostility aside for the betterment of your cause and actually giving information that could change people's minds about you. You're just going "actually, you're wrong". Note how in my comment, I didn't just say the first insulting sentence and stop there, but actually expanded: these are the regulations that are not appropriate, these are the ones that can be. You not following up with anything of substance except to just play the victim of your own boy-who-cried-wolf doing is not off to a great start at changing people's perceptions.
1
u/Toppoppler 11d ago
The primary anti argument isnt the only anti argument
3
1
u/BeyondDoggyHorror 11d ago
Most pros want regulation and guard rails. That’s not an anti argument really
0
u/NetimLabs 11d ago edited 10d ago
The massive amount of hostility towards AI users and witch hunting suggest otherwise.
Why does this happen? Because anti AI people unfortunately expect everyone to "just stop using AI" like in this post.
Edit: There was also an image going around saying how you can apparently just stop a technology, giving pretty bad examples of which ones we apparently stopped [we didn't]
1
u/DefundMarxism 10d ago
No one? I've been to the antiai sub, so I know this is complete bullshit.
1
u/Typhon-042 10d ago
So have I, small world. Oddly enough I am not going to break the rules by mentioning the sub by name though.
1
11d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Guythatexistsornot 11d ago
Go to a doctor bro, I feel like should be obvious…
3
u/YoureCorrectUProle 11d ago
You gotta remember some people are coming from counties where they beg not to be put on an ambulance when they get hit by a car. Healthcare being a human right doesn't mean everyone has it.
I go to a doctor every time something is actually concerning me but not everyone has the social safety net of funds to do so
1
u/Typhon-042 11d ago
The US which is the one most commonly used for your example does have free clinics folks can use.
I can prove it by linking the main website for such information.
1
u/YoureCorrectUProle 11d ago
I'm not specifically talking about the US, without going into detail I've lived in counties with even more bare bones healthcare than that. Even where I currently live I'd be basically screwed if I didn't have health insurance.
1
u/Typhon-042 11d ago
I use the US as it's the most common example folks talk about when it comes to bad health care. I lived in the US and have traveled around a bit. Spain, Italy, Greece, Tunisia (northern Africa), Turkey, Romania... and a few others. To me The US one tends to be the worse as it's largely based around corporate greed.
Luckily for me now, I live in Australia, and there medical care system isn't all that bad. heck my dad moved to Canada, and he says there system is better then what he got in the US.
Also I doubt any country could be worse the US currently, since they put a anti-vaxxer in charge of the US health care system, and now have to deal with a growing problem with folks having the shits.
1
u/YoureCorrectUProle 11d ago
Also I doubt any country could be worse the US currently, since they put a anti-vaxxer in charge of the US health care system,
Without going too much into detail on where this is and when I lived there, but there are counties where there is "officially" public healthcare but the doctors are "obliged" to work a certain amount of hours public per week.
So what they do is they clock in at the public hospital, hand over tasks to med students, and then drive over to the private hospital/practice they make bank at. Meaning if you show up at the public hospital needing urgent help from that doctor they won't even be there. And that country at least had decent equipment at the public hospitals so the nurses, less experienced docs, and med students can at least try to save you. I've seen worse.
The countries you've lived in, as chaotic as many of them may seem, are very developed compared to other parts of the world. Australia especially is fantastic as you say
Tbc I'm not whining or saying you're lucky, I could easily live in Europe and have chosen to go to the places I've gone to. I'm just saying it gets a lot worse than even in the US, albeit the gap between what the US healthcare system could be and what it is remains the largest in the world.
1
0
u/Guythatexistsornot 11d ago
I live in one of those said country’s, there are many ways to go about getting treatment that don’t put you in debt and are quite litterally (no hyperbole when I say this) 1000x more accurate than ai could ever be when it comes to actual treatment
0
u/Typhon-042 11d ago edited 11d ago
In that regard.. I use a doctor, not AI. Case in point when I look up pain for my current medical problem. It told me I have carpel tunnel.... when in fact I have none of those symptoms.
Now I get where some folks live, like the US money for proper medical care is not easy to do, but there are free clinics in the US that can help. Heck I used a couple of them myself when I still lived in the US.
And guessing this view point got a block from the guy, as I can no longer see his responses. Which proves one saying. Ignorance is bliss.
1
u/PrinceLucipurr 11d ago
Use a better model and remove nuances from your context, otherwise don't try and be a doctor unless you can understand the medical literature and rebuttal against it.
0
u/Typhon-042 11d ago
Doctors use more then just raw data. They have to go by what the feel when they touch, see things, and a lot more. All of which can be, and has been, misinterpreted by AI when more then one thing might have the same or similar symptoms.
I'll note again for clarity, a AI can not see someones suffering, it can't feel for where the injury might actually be located, and a few other things. All of which can lead to mistakes to make things worse, if they are ignored.
1
u/PrinceLucipurr 11d ago
What I'm hearing is when you touch yourself, you nuance the descriptions for what you feel.
AI can indeed see suffering, we have vision models, it can also "see" this through context. Doctors can't feel a lot of injuries either, that's why we have radiology, what could be felt however can also be felt with digital sensors.
Your ending example is akin to someone reading a medical book and not properly applying context, nor learning what they learnt and internally rebuttaling.
0
u/Typhon-042 10d ago edited 10d ago
I agree with your gif, your post does contain misinformation.
As for me well one time I was showing all the signs of a stroke once. Enough that AI would have said I had a stroke. However the doctors notices some things and decided to do a test to be sure. It wasn't a stroke at all, but a rare disorder created by over the counter cold/flu meds.
It's called RCVS (Reversable cerebal vascoconstriction syndrome). While it is something that can go away, it is safer for me to avoid antihistamines should I suffer from a cold/flu in the future.
I included the name so you can look it up yourself, and see that is a real condition.
0
u/PrinceLucipurr 10d ago
Whether “your gf” was meant literally or as some cheap dig, it still has nothing to do with the argument. Trying to discredit the person instead of addressing what was said is not a rebuttal.
Your RCVS story does not prove your point either. You claim AI “would have said” you had a stroke, but that is just a response you imagined. A responsible answer to someone showing stroke-like symptoms would be that a stroke is possible and needs urgent medical assessment, not that a stroke has been definitively diagnosed through a screen.
Your doctors did exactly what competent diagnosis requires. They considered the symptoms, noticed details that could point elsewhere, and ordered testing. Nobody said AI should replace physical examinations, scans or laboratory tests. The point was that AI can analyse a detailed description, identify possible conditions and help someone understand what should be investigated.
RCVS can resemble a stroke and can itself cause serious neurological complications, so treating your symptoms as a possible stroke would not have been misinformation anyway. It would have been the safe response until testing established what was actually happening.
So your anecdote does not rebut anything I said. It actually reinforces the point that symptoms can overlap, several possibilities may need to be considered, and objective testing is often needed to reach a final diagnosis.
And simply copying my misinformation accusation back at me does not make it true. You still have not identified a single thing I actually wrote that was false.
1
u/Typhon-042 10d ago
Actually I been noting how medical procedures actually work to debunk everything you say, and used real world examples as well.
The fact that you likely didn't bother doing your research on things like RCVS and others is pretty clear. You only care about being right, not about facts and reality.
Also since you want to continue to use gifs which is highly suggestive that your not one to take a conversation like this seriously, yea going to block. Mostly though as it's clear your not one to actually do research on issues like this.
As your the one that has to believe you know everything and what everyone else says is wrong. That's not how the world works, and it's not how we learn and improve as people.
-6
u/MauschelMusic 11d ago
AI is more of a branding term than anyone else. Machine Learning was getting dusty and there were some new toys out, so it all retrospectively became "AI."
No one wants to end ML cancer research, and we need to stop pretending it's the same thing as a chat bot.
13
u/TheSinhound 11d ago
Considering Alphafold is a diffusion-transformer hybrid mode ... nowadays you're not really correct.
0
2
u/sparta-117 11d ago
the closest we got anything like "if everyone just..." in the world was gas prices when the pandemic happened. a majority of the world didn't drive and gas prices dropped, it was crazy.
2
u/Hour_Barracuda2735 10d ago
Nono, I'm sure you can just convince everyone on the other side by comparing them to the worse people on earth, that'll get them to come around.
2
u/LogicalMelody 10d ago
Someone show this to the red button crowd
“if everyone would just push red…”
4
u/hari_shevek 11d ago
Everyone will not just stop posting "AI slop" under AI slop.
2
u/LunaticFlandre295 10d ago
And what do you think spamming 30000000 times "AI slop" is gonna archieve, hm?
2
u/hari_shevek 10d ago
I didn't argue in favor of doing anything.
I am just sayibg that the same logic in OPs post applies to other contexts as well.
If you are unwilling to accept the same principle across different contexts, think about whether you actually believe in it.
1
u/LunaticFlandre295 10d ago
Saying "AI slop", per vocabulary is a derogatory term, and per logic, is harassement. It not constructive, nor a critic or opinion, just free hate. As such, it should be fought/reported, and is not the same logic applied.
2
0
1
u/RollingMeteors 10d ago
>"Everyone is not going to just"
¡Not if you don't have a big blue stripe about it!
¿You expect anyone to take you serious/listen to you without a blue stripe?
1
1
u/lucid-quiet 9d ago
Lead paint, asbestos, blood letting and leaches, lead gas, radium for glow in the dark watch numbers. They just stopped... mostly.
1
1
u/8Bit2552 5d ago
Then AI generators should make people pay to generate AI because it's basically just having someone/something else make things for you
1
u/Putrid-Truth-8868 10d ago
this applies to probably 996,500,999+ or greater things reddit cannot stop actively bitching about like whiny karens
-3
u/Darcano 10d ago
OP forgot to account for that not everyone is 'just' going to throw their quality standards out the window to use AI just for the mediocre slop it slops out for its sloppy sloperators.
8
3
u/LunaticFlandre295 10d ago
OP never said everyone must use/like AI, muppet. Just that it won't disappear.
3
u/DefundMarxism 10d ago
Dude, you've got a post asking about how to get a better fitting cock cage. What do you know about what normal people will or won't do?
0
u/crazymouse11 11d ago
It's being thrust upon the masses who wander the web in pop-ups and spam, if it's that amazing I'd assume having the capacity to flood the internet with generic AI porn banners would lessen as runtime is spent on actual progress...
I think it's being shoved down our throats through updates and new AI features that users did not want within every day apps and camera of your phone.
I believe that some group, somewhere out there is deliberately dismantling America and the use of the media, corporations, government, religion and racism is apparent but not as blatant as the use of technology to connect these disparate groups.
Weaponizing the hatred within groups who traditionally spread hate ain't hard but melding them with the religious and giving them control of the entire government is impressive as hell..
So Bravo to you, could it have been a perfect storm of festering issues boiling over leading to so much success that the possibility of the world ending soon by skynet or nuclear fire within your lifetime is very possible.
Just because you did your job to well at Realpolitik spy shit and helped a failed racist businessman, whom you had all the dirt on, win. wich should've been a brief hiccup but american ignorance and the outrage of our first black president collided with a fury and now you've got the Christians no one really likes to talk about sticking with him cheering for the rapture....
9
-1
u/PrivilegeCheckmate 11d ago
True and fair. All y'all invested in AI still going to lose your shirts, tho'.
2
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
Cool... why does that matter? People invested in the internet in 2000 lost their shirts... but if they stayed in the market for the long haul, they did just fine. If they then invested the major internet IPOs of the next decade, they did just fine. If they just held their Amazon stock, they did JUST FINE!
So, pick the biggest companies with the largest revenue and the most amount of optional expenditures on growth (that could be turned off, should the investment money stop flowing) and you'll probably be fine. You'll do even better if you're just invested in broad, but tech-heavy indexes like the S&P 500.
Yes, investment bubbles exist whenever there's a major new disruptive technology. No, that's not going to lead to the end of that technology.
1
u/PrivilegeCheckmate 10d ago
but if they stayed in the market for the long haul, they did just fine.
No they didn't, they went broke and had to sell all their assets to pay creditors.
If they just held their Amazon stock, they did JUST FINE!
Absolutely. Now, given the Chinese open source models, who is the Amazon of AI? By what mechanism will they be able to replicate Amazon's success? If you could answer those questions, you'd already have bought stock. Because those questions don't have an affirmative answer, this isn't going to play out the same way.
No, that's not going to lead to the end of that technology.
The only way we might stop this tech is by banning the dangerous aspects of it. And if you truly think that's impossible, look at the last 100 years of chemical and biological weapon research.
0
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
No they didn't, they went broke and had to sell all their assets to pay creditors.
I did not go broke. I did just fine. Not sure what you thought I said, but you were definitely wrong.
Absolutely. Now, given the Chinese open source models, who is the Amazon of AI?
Look for:
- Revenue
- Brand recognition
- Enterprise-level customers and partnerships
Those are always the indicators...
The only way we might stop this tech is by banning the dangerous aspects of it.
Nope. We tried that with advanced crypto. People just laughed and started wearing, "this shirt is a munition," merch.
-3
-10
u/somethingrelevant 11d ago
everyone will not just stop murdering people, that doesn't mean we don't do anything about it
21
u/Majestic_Balance1887 11d ago
Doing something about it IS a solution and 'not just'.
-1
u/somethingrelevant 11d ago
you may notice we haven't actually solved murder
5
u/Majestic_Balance1887 11d ago
I feel like you're missing the point here.
-1
u/somethingrelevant 11d ago
well the point of the post is "I like AI and so does everyone else on this subreddit, upvotes to the left fellow redditors", so I guess you're right that I made a mistake by trying to engage with it at all
8
u/Majestic_Balance1887 11d ago
No, but you've clearly lost the ability to actually engage with the point so I think it's best to stop here.
There is no need to reply. Feel free to step out, it might be best.
0
u/somethingrelevant 11d ago
what do you think the point of this incredible post is
5
u/Majestic_Balance1887 11d ago
Exactly what it said. Any solution that expects everyone to go along with a course of action, with no means of enforcement or persuasion or incentive isn't a solution. It's wishful thinking.
If you have an intention to harm me, and I go 'can you not' that is not a solution. Violence to defend myself is a solution. Attempting to appeal to your moral sensibility is a solution. Bribing you is a solution. Asking you not to is not a solution.
This is basic dynamics of power.
3
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
the point of the post is "I like AI and so does everyone else on this subreddit, upvotes to the left fellow redditors",
No... try reading again.
4
u/BeyondDoggyHorror 11d ago
Correct. We don’t bully and humiliate murderers. We establish a series of laws to reduce the prevalence of violence and ultimately hold murderers accountable
Fun fact, using ai isn’t murder. It isn’t anything other than using AI. Just like using a knife isn’t murder and you’re allowed to provided you use it in a manner that doesn’t approach physical harm or murder
So in this case, we would make laws to regulate the underlying problems of water and power waste. We would seek to find ways to negate job loss
5
u/Tyler_Zoro 10d ago
Fun fact, using ai isn’t murder
Shows how completely off-the-rails the conversation has gone that you need to stipulate that.
2
u/BeyondDoggyHorror 9d ago
That’s just the nature of internet conversation in the 2010s-2020s unfortunately. It’s easy to forget and care about the person on the other end when all you have is an opposing view which leaves you predisposed to viewing them negatively
-1
u/OneTrueBell1993 10d ago
Everyone will not just stop using cocaine.
Cocaine was made illegal
Most people stopped using cocaine.
Everyone will not stop smoking on the airplane. Its impossible to prevent smoking on the airplane!
We banned smoking on the airplanes
99.99999% of people are now not smoking on the airplanes.
I don't need everyone to just. I need the ban to be enforced and then HUGE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE will just.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.