this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
1599 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

59533 readers
3174 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 45 points 5 months ago (2 children)

keep poisoning AI until it's useless to everyone.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

There are also AI poisoners for images and audio data

[–] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago (6 children)
[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 27 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less,

It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In response to better technology that reduced the need for work hours.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but that's not because technology doesn't reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

no? no one argued tech doesn't reduce the need for working hours. read it again.

[–] mriormro@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That wasn't technology. It was the literal spilling of blood of workers and organizers fighting and dying for those rights.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And you think they just did it because?

They obviously thought they deserved it, because... technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

no, they deserve it regardless.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Which has nothing to do with whether technology reduces the need for working hours, which is what I was arguing.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How do you think we got the 40hr work week?

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

furthering class divide, ultimately leading to a collapse in countries and economies

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%.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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)

[–] lud@lemm.ee -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

orrrr just ditch the entire overhyped underdelivering thing

[–] lud@lemm.ee -2 points 5 months ago

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

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 17 points 5 months ago

Fuck 'em, that's why.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

For one thing, it's an environmental disaster and few people seem to care.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/artificial-intelligence-climate-energy-emissions