@bekkaboo@girlcock.club Linux itself is heavily using AI models. Therefore, every Linux distribution moving to recent kernel versions is heavily built on top of using AI models. Creating a Linux distribution not heavily using it would require a hard fork of the Linux kernel and many other projects.
It's unclear what would be accomplished by banning AI for a tiny portion of the code while continuing to use Linux, AOSP, Chromium and hundreds of other projects heavily using it. We'd still be benefiting from it.
GrapheneOS is currently defending its use of AI coding tools on Mastodon against complaints by various accounts claiming to be users.
We do not understand where you’re coming from or why you’re so incredibly angry with us. It’s not justified and does not make sense.
I mean this in the worst way possible. Your attitude mirrors the far right and is just as bad a take. That’s their approach to everything.
“Oh, you’re fighting against something you see as a danger to literally the entire world? Well if you’d just stop shoving your opinion in our face we’d be happier.”
He doesn’t care for misguided opinions not backed with anything but emotion. The people he is talking about don’t actually look into the issues and fight those, their mind is set that AI is evil and you are too for any usage of it, without actually understanding anything about the situation.
There are situations where using AI uses less power than traditional methods, there are situations where the power is clean, hell there are even models getting made that don’t use stolen data. Some people use it more responsibly (use tiny models where possible) while some toss everything at whatever new Fable or Opus is available.
There are levels of AI usage and their blanket statements with no understanding are annoying because it alienates the people that are responsible with their usage.
It absolutely is something I struggle with. To me, I know LLMs are just called AI but aren’t, and machine learning is not LLM. I’ve actually developed a neural network based program for a previous company before and know it can be useful in certain cases.
But how do I know the person I’m talking to knows that? How do I know the person is one of the minority who is trying to do it ethically and responsibly? How do I express just how truly damaging the current mainstream “AI” methods are succinctly and strongly without getting bogged down in that discussion and sidetracked from the bigger picture (which is exactly what’s happening here in this comment for example).
AI is Evil -> Irresponsible AI use is Evil
AI destroys the environment -> Irresponsible AI use is destroying the environment
All it really takes imo is a small adjustment of words to change your stance from looking like zealotry to actual concern for the issues. I also think these sidetracks are important, to be fair. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had this conversation to deepen our understanding of the issues.
I would be more than willing to agree if the message was “Frontier AI labs are causing massive harm to the environment by facilitating irresponsible use of AI” rather than “AI is evil, fuck you for using it” (not saying those are your words, just getting my point across lol)
I have tried that shift from “AI is Evil” -> “Irresponsible AI use is Evil” and what I found is everyone then goes “well I’m one of the responsible ones” and we end up right back where we started with them pumping every thought into a prompt and churning out whatever with no regard. Humans are very skilled at believing they aren’t the problem and are the hero of their own story.
If however, the lazy approach is taken of “AI is evil, fuck you for using it” (those are my words but with the asterisk of if you truly are part of the 0.01% using it responsibly then ignore me) then people understand that, yes, I mean you guy running claude code to “write” your next big app.
It’s the same problem of why marginalized people get overlooked or alienated in general. They’re in the margins because they aren’t the norm. Not saying it’s good, just this is more of that and I’ve never seen a good solution.
I explicitly did not call you a Nazi or far right. I do see how what I wrote could be interpreted that way and isn’t my intent so my bad on that one.
I said that that’s a far right attitude to take. Shutting out the opinion of people against it because you view them as obnoxious. Nothing good will happen if we all did that in my opinion.
I never shut out opposing opinions… i merely said that i’m irritated by the anti-AI purists…
"All AI is facist and you are a facist/far-right/nazi if you use even a little bit of it " (not what you said, but a very common statement on lemmy)
“AI is a potentially useful technology that has a lot of negatove externalities. Let’s work together to reduce the negatives and take the power back from big tech.”
Which one of those stances sounds more like “Shutting out the opinion of people”?
I’m gonna point you at the comment chain I’ve got adjacent to this with Zeoic if you missed it. I think it’s ultimately dancing around the same stuff and expresses my thoughts more cleanly on this topic.
I mean this in the worst way possible. Your attitude mirrors the far right and is just as bad a take. That’s their approach to everything.
“Oh, you’re fighting against something you see as a danger to literally the entire world? Well if you’d just stop shoving your opinion in our face we’d be happier.”
He doesn’t care for misguided opinions not backed with anything but emotion. The people he is talking about don’t actually look into the issues and fight those, their mind is set that AI is evil and you are too for any usage of it, without actually understanding anything about the situation.
There are situations where using AI uses less power than traditional methods, there are situations where the power is clean, hell there are even models getting made that don’t use stolen data. Some people use it more responsibly (use tiny models where possible) while some toss everything at whatever new Fable or Opus is available.
There are levels of AI usage and their blanket statements with no understanding are annoying because it alienates the people that are responsible with their usage.
I am sorry you get tossed out with the bathwater.
It absolutely is something I struggle with. To me, I know LLMs are just called AI but aren’t, and machine learning is not LLM. I’ve actually developed a neural network based program for a previous company before and know it can be useful in certain cases.
But how do I know the person I’m talking to knows that? How do I know the person is one of the minority who is trying to do it ethically and responsibly? How do I express just how truly damaging the current mainstream “AI” methods are succinctly and strongly without getting bogged down in that discussion and sidetracked from the bigger picture (which is exactly what’s happening here in this comment for example).
AI is Evil -> Irresponsible AI use is Evil AI destroys the environment -> Irresponsible AI use is destroying the environment
All it really takes imo is a small adjustment of words to change your stance from looking like zealotry to actual concern for the issues. I also think these sidetracks are important, to be fair. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had this conversation to deepen our understanding of the issues.
I would be more than willing to agree if the message was “Frontier AI labs are causing massive harm to the environment by facilitating irresponsible use of AI” rather than “AI is evil, fuck you for using it” (not saying those are your words, just getting my point across lol)
I have tried that shift from “AI is Evil” -> “Irresponsible AI use is Evil” and what I found is everyone then goes “well I’m one of the responsible ones” and we end up right back where we started with them pumping every thought into a prompt and churning out whatever with no regard. Humans are very skilled at believing they aren’t the problem and are the hero of their own story.
If however, the lazy approach is taken of “AI is evil, fuck you for using it” (those are my words but with the asterisk of if you truly are part of the 0.01% using it responsibly then ignore me) then people understand that, yes, I mean you guy running claude code to “write” your next big app.
It’s the same problem of why marginalized people get overlooked or alienated in general. They’re in the margins because they aren’t the norm. Not saying it’s good, just this is more of that and I’ve never seen a good solution.
Ok, so i’m far-right (just call me a nazi) because i dont have a 100% blind hatred of AI?
this is exactly what i’m talking about… this kind of holier than thou attitude makes enemies out of potential allies
I’m sure if we had a reasonable discussion about AI we’d find 90% of our opinions align… i’m generally very against AI as it is now…
But instead you’ve already labelled me as just another pro-AI nazi because i dont pass your purity test
I explicitly did not call you a Nazi or far right. I do see how what I wrote could be interpreted that way and isn’t my intent so my bad on that one.
I said that that’s a far right attitude to take. Shutting out the opinion of people against it because you view them as obnoxious. Nothing good will happen if we all did that in my opinion.
I never shut out opposing opinions… i merely said that i’m irritated by the anti-AI purists…
"All AI is facist and you are a facist/far-right/nazi if you use even a little bit of it " (not what you said, but a very common statement on lemmy)
“AI is a potentially useful technology that has a lot of negatove externalities. Let’s work together to reduce the negatives and take the power back from big tech.”
Which one of those stances sounds more like “Shutting out the opinion of people”?
I’m gonna point you at the comment chain I’ve got adjacent to this with Zeoic if you missed it. I think it’s ultimately dancing around the same stuff and expresses my thoughts more cleanly on this topic.
Is that what you’re doing, then?