←back to thread

I Am An AI Hater

(anthonymoser.github.io)
443 points BallsInIt | 1 comments | 27 Aug 25 19:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.31s | source
Show context
dpoloncsak ◴[27 Aug 25 20:23 UTC] 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 #
1. AlecSchueler ◴[28 Aug 25 13:12 UTC] No.45051745[source]▶
> Didn't google just prove there is little to no environmental harm, INCLUDING if you account for training?

No, they showed that the environmental impact of using a smaller AI embedded on Google results uses less power to train and run than using something SOA. That's quite a different thing altogether.

> I don't ask a lot of race-based questions to my LLMS I guess

You don't need to ask explicit questions to receive answers where bias is implicitly stated. You've dismissed the argument out of hand without actually meeting it.

> I won't deny it's an issue but to act like it's being ignored by the industry is a miss completely.

The claim was that critics had been vocal about it, not that it had been ignored by the industry.

> 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.

Policing is always very patchy. You maybe broke the law and got away with it as an individual, that's common. The issue is that these huge businesses can do a level of copyright infringement, and do it on a for-profit basis, while smaller businesses would be eradicated for attempting the same thing, and the artists they're taking from would face similar issues if they attempted even a fraction of that level of plagiarism.