1611
Google AI making up recalls that didn’t happen
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
1611 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59161 readers
2130 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why?
Because LLMs are planet destroying bullshit artists built in the image of their bullshitting creators. They are wasteful and they are filling the internet with garbage. Literally making the apex of human achievement, the internet, useless with their spammy bullshit.
Lol, got any more angry words?
Because they will only be used my corporations to replace workers, furthering class divide, ultimately leading to a collapse in countries and economies. Jobs will be taken, and there will be no resources for the jobless. The future is darker than bleak should LLMs and AI be allowed to be used indeterminately by corporations.
We should use them to replace workers, letting everyone work less and have more time to do what they want.
We shouldn't let corporations use them to replace workers, because workers won't see any of the benefits.
that won't happen. technological advancement doesn't allow you to work less, it allowa you to work less for the same output. so you work the same hours but the expected output changes, and your productivity goes up while your wages stay the same.
It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?
it was forced by unions.
In response to better technology that reduced the need for work hours.
no, in response to human beings needing rest. the need for work hours was drastically reduced since, but nothing changed. corporations don't care, they just want you to work until you die, no matter how much you contribute none of them is gonna say "you know what, that's enough, maybe you should work less". wage theft keeps getting worse.
Yes, but that's not because technology doesn't reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.
no? no one argued tech doesn't reduce the need for working hours. read it again.
That wasn't technology. It was the literal spilling of blood of workers and organizers fighting and dying for those rights.
And you think they just did it because?
They obviously thought they deserved it, because... technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?
no, they deserve it regardless.
Which has nothing to do with whether technology reduces the need for working hours, which is what I was arguing.
How do you think we got the 40hr work week?
Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.
Stop after your first 4 words and you'd be correct but all your other words are just your imagination and you trying to rationalize what you've already said.
Obviously I'm trying to rationalize what I already said, that's how an argument works.
I am arguing that better technology reduces the need for working hours.
That's it.
Might be the cynic in me but I don't think that would be the worst outcome. Maybe it will finally be the straw that breaks the camel's back for people to realize that being a highly replaceable worker drone wage slave isn't really going anywhere for everyone except the top-0.001%.
Fuck 'em, that's why.
because the sooner corporate meatheads clock that this shit is useless and doesn't bring that hype money the sooner it dies, and that'd be a good thing because making shit up doesn't require burning a square km of rainforest per query
not that we need any of that shit anyway. the only things these plagiarism machines seem to be okayish at is mass manufacturing spam and disinfo, and while some adderral-fueled middle managers will try to replace real people with it, it will fail flat on this task (not that it ever stopped them)
I think it sounds like there are huge gains to be made in energy efficiency instead.
Energy costs money so datacenters would be glad to invest in better and more energy efficient hardware.
orrrr just ditch the entire overhyped underdelivering thing
It can be helpful if you know how to use it though.
I don't use it myself a lot but quite a few at work use it and are very happy with chatgpt
For one thing, it's an environmental disaster and few people seem to care.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/artificial-intelligence-climate-energy-emissions
Because he wants to stop it from helping impoverished people live better lives and all the other advantages simply because it didn't exist when.he was young and change scares him
Holy shit your assumption says a lot about you. How do you think AI is going to "help impoverished people live better lives" exactly?
It's fascinating to me that you genuinely don't know, it shows not only do you have no active interest in working to benefit impoverished communities but you have no real knowledge of the conversations surrounding ai - but here you are throwing out your opion with the certainty of a zealot.
If you had any interest or involvement in any aid or development project relating to the global south you'd be well aware that one of the biggest difficulties for those communities is access to information and education in their first language so a huge benefit of natural language computing would be very obvious to you.
Also If you followed anything but knee-jerk anti-ai memes to try and develop an understand of this emerging tech you'd have without any doubt been exposed to the endless talking points on this subject, https://oxfordinsights.com/insights/data-and-power-ai-and-development-in-the-global-south/ is an interesting piece covering some of the current work happening on the language barrier problems i mentioned ai helping with.
That's the part I take issue with, the weird probably-projecting assumption about people.
Have fun with the holier-than-thou moral high ground attitude about AI though, shits laughable.
I think you misunderstood the context, I'm not really saying that he actively wants to stop it helping poor people I'm saying that he doesn't care about or consider the benefits to other people simply because he's entirely focused on his own emotional response which stems from a fear of change.