you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 35 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

It sure is useful at making my boss post a lot of conflicting things because AI can’t understand context at all. “Force multiplier” doesn’t mean it’s multiplying good things. It can just as easily multiply nonsense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

    Like any tool, the user plays a key role in the quality of the output.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Yeah but it’s also just kind of a shitty tool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Thats a take, but if you pair that sentiment with what I just said it paints a funny picture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Like if I went to the store and bought a cheap hammer and it breaks after a few swings it’s a shitty tool. No matter my expertise with said tool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 3 weeks ago

    That analogy only works if the AI literally stops functioning after a few uses.

    A better comparison would be a tool that performs badly when used for the wrong job or by someone who doesn't know its limitations.

    “Sometimes produces bad output” isn't the same thing as “shitty tool.”

    Which just feeds back into what I've already said. Shall we go around again?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    Not really. The output of LLMs is massively increased global warming, increased prices of goods and services, decreased number of jobs, increased numbers of bugs in software, massive increase in wealth migration from poor to the rich, and increased surveillance. None of that has to do with the quality of the users. Just using it at all results in all of those things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    You're confused, those things are the outputs out late-stage capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Usually id agree but im not sure that really applies here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

    I'd understand if these tools were small scale, eco-friendly, ethically developped and trained, and owned by the workers.

    Considering most LLM and AI/AI-adjacent tools used are large-scale tools created and owned by big greedy corporations, I'd say the tools themselves are a product of late stage capitalism, thus the bad results they produce are results of simultaneoulsly :

    • the tools themselves
    • why they were created
    • how they were created
    • why they are used
    • how they are used
    • ...
    • late stage capitalism (which also influnce the previous items)
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    You started by saying they produce the issues, but are now explaining what I said above, that they are a product of upstream social issues.

    Is this worth discussing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Reminder of my only two previous comments in this topic:

    Both can be true.

    and

    I'd understand if these tools were small scale, eco-friendly, ethically developped and trained, and owned by the workers.

    Considering most LLM and AI/AI-adjacent tools used are large-scale tools created and owned by big greedy corporations, I'd say the tools themselves are a product of late stage capitalism, thus the bad results they produce are results of simultaneoulsly :

    • the tools themselves
    • why they were created
    • how they were created
    • why they are used
    • how they are used
    • ...
    • late stage capitalism (which also influnce the previous items)

    End of the reminder.

    Your answer to that was:

    You started by saying they produce the issues, but are now explaining what I said above, that they are a product of upstream social issues.

    What motivated my answer is:

    Most events have multiple causes and multiple consequences. All of them can also interfere with each other. They can form retroaction loops too.

    What I was explicitely saying is:

    These tools were created and specialised for late-stage capitalism goals. There will be some common consequences, including bad ones, between usage by the big corpos and usage by random persons, whatever their skills. That's why I said that both these takes are true:

    The output of LLMs is massively increased global warming, increased prices of goods and services, decreased number of jobs, increased numbers of bugs in software, massive increase in wealth migration from poor to the rich, and increased surveillance. None of that has to do with the quality of the users. Just using it at all results in all of those things.

    and

    those things are the outputs out late-stage capitalism.

    It seems that we disagree about my view, but don't attribute to me shit I didn't say to fight this false argument.

    So...

    Is this worth discussing.

    Apparently no, at least not when you oversimplify causality and misrepresent what I said. Still worth argumenting for others to have more arguments to weight.

    Now, this discussion looks to me like the stupid "debate" around "guns kill people" VS "guns don't kill, only the people using them do" in the specific context of gun control laws.

    And also, fuck capitalism, and other systems of exploitation, oppression, domination.

  • source
  • parent