←back to thread

I Am An AI Hater

(anthonymoser.github.io)
443 points BallsInIt | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dpoloncsak ◴[] No.45044706[source]
> Critics have already written thoroughly about the environmental harms, the reinforcement of bias and generation of racist output, the cognitive harms and AI supported suicides, the problems with consent and copyright...

This paragraph really pisses me off and I'm not sure why.

> Critics have already written thoroughly about the environmental harms

Didn't google just prove there is little to no environmental harm, INCLUDING if you account for training?

> the reinforcement of bias and generation of racist output

Im uneducated here, honestly. I don't ask a lot of race-based questions to my LLMS I guess

>the cognitive harms and AI supported suicides

There is constant active rhetoric around the sycophancy, and ways to reduce this, right? OpenAI just made a new benchmark specifically for this. I won't deny it's an issue but to act like it's being ignored by the industry is a miss completely.

>the problems with consent and copyright

This is the best argument on the page imo, and even that is highly debated. I agree with "AI is performing copyright infringement" and see constant "AI ignores my robots.txt". I also grew up being told that ANYTHING on the internet was for the public, and copyright never stopped *me* from saving images or pirating movies.

Then the rest touches on ways people will feel about or use AI, which is obviously just as much conjecture as anything else on the topic. I can't speak for everyone else, and neither can anyone else.

replies(15): >>45044737 #>>45044796 #>>45044852 #>>45044866 #>>45044914 #>>45044917 #>>45044933 #>>45044982 #>>45045000 #>>45045057 #>>45045130 #>>45045208 #>>45045212 #>>45045303 #>>45051745 #
sindriava ◴[] No.45044796[source]
I appreciate this response. The environmental impact is such a red herring it's not even funny. Somehow these statements never include the impact of watching Netflix shows or doing data processing manually.
replies(3): >>45044850 #>>45045063 #>>45046675 #
didibus ◴[] No.45044850[source]
They might hate those too?

It's pretty clear there are impacts, AI needs energy, consumes material, creates trash.

You probably just don't mind it. The fact is still fact, the conclusion is different, you assess it's not a big concern in the grand scheme of it and worth it for the pros. The author doesn't care much for the pros, so then any environmental impact is a net loss for them.

I feel both take are rational.

replies(2): >>45044892 #>>45045104 #
sindriava ◴[] No.45044892[source]
They might be rational, but taking things out of context as much as happens with any AI / environment narrative gives off a strong "arsenic-free cauliflower" smell.
replies(2): >>45045083 #>>45045122 #
andybak ◴[] No.45045083[source]
I think I get "arsenic-free cauliflower" from context but searching brings up no sources. Did you coin that phrase or is my non-google-fu just weak?
replies(1): >>45045163 #
1. sindriava ◴[] No.45045163[source]
Huh, my search is also turning up nothing. I could swear I heard a story about cauliflower originally being yellow and getting replaced with the white cultivar due to the guy who grew it marketing it as "arsenic-free" cauliflower despite the fact that the yellow one had no arsenic to begin with. Either I'm getting Mandela effected or I'm hallucinating -- which of course only AI models are capable of ;)