I don’t think AI is anti-ethical or fascist per se. As many argued here, you can run it locally, you can train it on public data sets, etc.
But there is another problem that is hardly mentioned. Let’s call it a culturally negative feedback loop. AI is different from any other tool because it pretends to be an universal tool. It can generate music, pictures, videos, text, code. If we as a society outsource all those skills to automatisation, there’s a real danger we unlearn those skills.
Ultimately we’ll just unlearn thinking, why bother making any decision or have any critical thoughts yourself when you can outsource it to the AI.
Remember that time Hitler didn’t trust atomic bomb research because it was “Jew technology” that was awesome for the world.
The machine gun was an imperialist and fascist technology of oppression. But call it a Kalashnikov and it becomes a tool for liberation.
Do not listen to neoliberal fuckai morons. Think for yourself what tools you can use or not. If machine generated AI slop is indistinguishable from real human “art”, then it was never art but human slop to begin with. What generations of rom-coms and participation trophies does to a people’s ego.
Push for meaningful regulation of AI instead of endless whining and villifying people like e.g. non-capitalist china does: https://regulations.ai/regulations/china-summary
China is capitalist this has been settled by Chinese capitalists claiming China is capitalist. It could be up for debate but the homelanders are almost definitely going to come out on top where .ml’s are seen as reality challenged individuals. So while I agree with your first 2 sentences I am going to challenge your propaganda attempt. Oh does only a certain class get true capitalism?
This post is a little silly. Weapons like swords, guns, etc are the original fascist weapons.
Use tech or fund tech like Zig Programming language, Haiku OS , NetBSD which have Anti AI policies
Batman The Dark Knight Returns is probably the best comic
There is no such thing as “fascist technology”. Technology is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil.
Except fascists are more likely to use it because they are artistic nincompoops
I see. So using it to cure cancer has to be stopped in its tracks now cuz you had a shallow political opinion.
No one is using LLMs to cure cancer.
Medical AI and LLM’s are not the same thing
Read it again. Post says AI. all AI not just LLM.
like i said: shallow political opinions. just so you idiots can rage bait. this is pathetic.
I think there’s a pretty clear implication of referring to generative AI specifically when lay people use the term at this point, especially when creative labor is mentioned.
I’ve become a doomer when it comes to AI at this point. Even if we in the US stops the development of AI, China will push and improve the technology regardless and then overtime as every other country adopts it, we will be technologically behind. My only hope is that AI gets properly regulated, but we already opened pandora’s box, it’s not going away. I now better emphize with the people in the 1890s opposing machinery that automated their jobs though, since that’s a similar position to where we are at. So yeah, I’m both a climate AND an AI doomer at this point
I know lemmy has a big hard on for anti-AI but a few things here:
- AI is over 60 years old and includes things like machine learning. Not all AI is generative or large language models.
- There is nothing fascist about running open AI (not “openAI”) models on your own hardware and that’s the future Cory Doctorow (mr “enshittification”) makes in his latest book The Reverse-Centaurs Guide to Life After AI. Basically he theorizes when the AI bubble collapasses it will be terrible but it will shift AI into the hands of consumers and allow people to use AI to do work for them, rather than their bosses using AI to replace workers.
- Does using facial recognition against ICE count as fascism?
There are many legitimate criticisms against AI, especially generative models, but this ain’t one
The problem is that the general public has adopted “AI” to mean the current popular machine learning thing, the general category of “generative AI”, and if you want a message about it to be received broadly, you need to use terms people will understand.
In my case, I’m not aware of any GenAI models that produce useful output that I’d consider to be ethical, so I support this message.
The problem is that the general public has adopted “AI” to mean the current popular machine learning thing,
Yes, that is the problem, because people don’t understand that it’s a short-hand, and don’t understand the difference between harmful uses, and non-harmful uses. The concept itself becomes a meaningless tribal indicator of hate. “This person is acting unethically and unlawfully,” has quickly become “I don’t understand what this technology is, but when I see ‘AI’ I automatically hate whatever it’s associated with.” That is counter-productive to humanity as a whole.
So stop saying that any given technology or method is intrinsically bad, and start focusing on WHO is doing the harm and HOW.
If I’m having a direct discussion with somebody, then I’ll make it clear what I’m talking about, and if they engage in a conversation about ethics, I’ll explain why those things are unethical.
But if I wanted to post a public message to voice my sentiment, I don’t think trying to post a long explanation every time would do any good, most people would probably just skip it when they saw it’s longer than a couple lines of text. So for those cases, I’d say you have to go down to the level of current discourse to engage with the masses on their terms if you want to be heard.
But if I wanted to post a public message to voice my sentiment, I don’t think trying to post a long explanation every time would do any good
That’s a non sequitur. The initial point was “Stop using this term incorrectly, because it spreads misunderstanding and misinformation.”
Nobody said you should write a thesis per reply, and my entire point was to focus on the harms, and the actors, not the tech.
Saying “AI is unethical,” is a truly nonsensical statement. Even if we grant that AI is shorthand for LLM, is still isn’t justified as all I need to do is find an instance of an open source model being trained on public data to refute it, and there are MANY.
Unless you think that using public data to make public software is inherently unethical, which is a hard stance to justify.
If you’re upset with Sam Altman and ChatGPT, then you can simply say “Sam Altman is a thief, and ChatGPT uses stolen data.” Which is infinitely more defendable than “AI is trained on stolen data and is unethical.”
If you’re upset with Sam Altman and ChatGPT, then you can simply say “Sam Altman is a thief, and ChatGPT uses stolen data.” Which is infinitely more defendable than “AI is trained on stolen data and is unethical.”
The issue is, I’d say the same applies to every model that produces useful outputs. LLaMa, Anthropic, Grok, DeepSeek, whatever else is out there. If you tell somebody that the LLM they’re using is unethical, they’ll nust go use another convenient corporate model.
And “public data” is not enough for me, because that typically means scraping copyrighted content from public websites, I’m not aware of a model that uses only data with permission (either explicit or granted by the license) that’s useful, and the people who need to hear about ethical problems with GenAI especially don’t know about that.
The issue is, I’d say the same applies to every model that produces useful outputs.
That you know of. Your lack of awareness is not an indication on the stance of the technology itself. If you have a problem with Grok, as I do, then condemn Grok, Twitter, and that pathetic man child that owns them.
If you tell somebody that the LLM they’re using is unethical, they’ll nust go use another convenient corporate model.
Yeah, so actively fight against these toxic corporate activities. Fuck OpenAI. Fuck Google. Fuck Twitter. But the instant negative reaction to their shared tool is getting quite a few additional people caught in the blast.
And “public data” is not enough for me, because that typically means scraping copyrighted content from public websites, I’m not aware of a model that uses only data with permission
Again, this is an expression of your ignorance, not reality.
OLMo 2 was trained on Wikipedia and other fully public forums. Its training sources and data is fully accessible and open.
GPT-NeoX is an untrained model that you can train yourself. It’s literally just the foundations anybody could use.
Pythia is fully open source, and one of its training sources was GitHub. Which does genuinely bring in to question whether or not you can use GitHub to train AI. Personally, I don’t see how branching a repository is any different than using the code to train a model. But the current anti-AI trend has people EXTREMELY sensitive to this concept.
one of my specific issues is use of the word intelligence. exactly 0 of the “AI” built over the previous 60 years is “endowed with the faculty of understanding or reason”… it is false advertising at best and a scam if we’re being honest.
if they called it “bag of words” processing or “computer that is pretty good at guessing what your taking about” i’d be less irritated when people laud it’s accomplishments.
at the core, all of these technologies are signal processing and pattern recognition, nothing more… no matter what musk, altman and the rest say there is no intelligence in there.
This is an issue of science in general, and MANY people take issue with naming conventions, even scientists themselves. Black holes aren’t black and they aren’t holes. The big bang didn’t explode and there probably wasn’t sound. The primordial soup didn’t have chicken broth.
Unfortunately, that is exceedingly unlikely to change.
You are just using a very narrow definition of intelligence to mean exactly human-like intelligence. All intelligence is signal processing and pattern recognition. You can give LLM a novel task and it might complete it. Sometimes even well. Sure, you may argue it doesn’t “understand” what’s it’s doing the way humans do (seemingly), but it’s still intelligence of some kind.
I’m using the definition of intelligence from a dictionary. language should be accurate. if AI folks called it “intellectual mimicry” I would have no issues.
they are attempting to bequeath an endowment based on specious reasoning and the hope to make money; not on the actual abilities of the machine.
People focus on the “intelligence” part but ignore artificial, and I think that makes a big difference. The name is pretty apt honestly. It appears to be intelligent. It outwardly simulates intelligence. But it’s all man made to present that illusion - like an artificial reef.
Artificial: made, produced, or done by humans especially to seem like something natural.
hmmm… good one.
Sure, you may argue it doesn’t “understand” what’s it’s doing the way humans do (seemingly)
I think one could argue that “It doesn’t actually understand what it’s saying, it’s just parroting its training data” also applies to a depressingly large portion of the human population.
you just gave me some new slang! Instead of using AI to describe these technologies, I will use PP, for parrot processing. 🤣
“Stochastic parrot” is the term I see most often
As an autist, this is pretty much how I communicated with neurotypicals for most of my life. Person says something, I pull something out of my database of premade scripts and with any luck, it made sense in context. 😅😅
Largely agree. AI isn’t going away; the left needs to take a page out of Sanders and advocate instead for nationalizing and regulating instead.
Please stop “the left need to…” it makes no sense, everyone i know, even conservatives hate AI
The right is too ignorant to fix anything, let alone advocate for regulation and nationalization as I stated.
Let’s not confuse “the left” with whatever the current blind AI hate is.
I’ve literally been accused of being anti-human for trying to differentiate AI from the genuine harms it is being used for. There was one post where scientists had used a specialized LLM to create novel bacteriophages, and the comments were freaking out, claiming it was super-bugs and a new bioweapon…
Using logical arguments is fascist, ableist and probably racist.
That’s an ad hominem!
This “purism” is the reason why they keep winning. Letting only them using the most powerful tech humanity ever made is just like not voting for Harris because of Gaza. Look the mess we are now. How much we need to lose to stop this purism?
Ah yes. The most powerful teth humanity has ever made.
The weapon is dehumanizing others and it’s a weapon that gets used pretty often here.
I hate clankers as much as the next person, and providing money to war profiteering should obviously be avoided with great priority…
But really? This is a wild comparison on so many levels. There are ways to use AI ethically, and there are ways to use it unethically, amd blinding yourself to that conversation is willful ignorance.
AI != LLM != LLM chatbots.
But in this case the use of “AI” means “LLM chatbots”, nobody is really making an argument against other kinds of AI, like what is used to detect cancer (there is an argument to be made about having a black box in a medical context, but this is not the place for it).
Honestly I’d say it’s a pretty apt comparison. Pledging to defend your rights while avoiding using anything labeled “AI” because fascists use it is about as smart as pledging to defend your rights without using guns because fascists use them.
Thank you for saying what I was trying to much more concisely ❤️
Absolutely. I’ve softened my stance a lot recently. I think local llm are fine. The data has already been crunched the books destroyed and the water used so I may as well play with one locally. If you set realistic uses as a tool its fine. Need a quick script great at that. Summarize some notes, or search through them also great. Not really into image gen or anything else but anything helping me get dumb stuff out of the way for just myself its a W. I’m not down with using it for public facing stuff.
This should be obvious.
Using AI to detect cancer early? Using AI to help find new beneficial medications? Using AI to advance materials science? Great! Things like these are absolutely what we need more of.
Using AI to steal massive amounts of content made by non-consenting parties and regurgitate for AI corp profits? Using corporate algorithms to manipulate output to generate results favoring corporate billionaire owners economically and politically? Using it to make sexual photos of non-consenting women and underage girls? Using it to find ways to deny coverage, strip more money from people, wage war, attack intelligence and discourse, and remove accountability for corporate owners? Fuck that.
Guess which ones the oligarchs prefer.
Well said! It’s almost as if the conversation is being intentionally moved to ‘YES AI’ (sexy future times) vs 'NO AI (Luddite, dumb, regressive) instead of what every conversation is actually about, which is that morality should never be allowed to be determined by wealth.
People figured out how to make statistical inferences smart enough to write kinda like humans and do a bunch of other things really really well. We would ignore them at our own peril.
Accepting their output as a replacement for human art and expression is another matter entirely.
Careful. If you start being too reasonable people might accuse you of using ad hominems.
Fascists didnt invent AI, Gen AI or LLMs. They are just using them, selling and making money with it.
Same with cars. Fascists didnt invent the car or EVs. They are just using them, selling and making money with it.
But you wouldnt call someone out for driving with their car to a antifascist protest, would you?
Is it a Tesla?
I hope not, I just mentioned EVs because it makes the comparison more striking
deleted by creator
