this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
24 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1620 readers
151 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let's please try to be more specific
"AI" in general is just overpowered statistics, which can be used in many very useful ways, including saving life and reducing the work needed to fulfill the needs of a population. AI can help plan maintenance to infrastructure, saving resources.
The issue is the use of Generative AI that does no good public deeds, that is just a waste of resources, trained without consent on the data, to make investors happy.
Which is more complex than just saying "AI", the same way "Monopolistic social networks that exploit their user's data for toxic advertisement" is more complex than just saying "computers" or "the internet"
“Hello, peasants, I come to deliver you from ignorance. I can tell just by looking at your filthy clothes and vacant gazes that you all misuse the term AI. It is my obligation and privilege to educate you and inform you of the bright future AI is soon to bring, you swine.”
That’s you
Look, I understand it can come off as pretentious. Perhaps it is
But let's frame this a second.
AI, as I'm sure you are all aware, is a very old concept with useful applications dating back in the 80s. Not "the future is bright", but "this is a useful tool that is already helping in many fields".
Then one day, in the last 5 years, monopolists start doing generative AI to offer a flashy useless and wasteful service.
We then start calling this specific abuse of the technology, and of tens of years of passionate research, like the technology itself, overshadowing the rest.
If you think there's nothing wrong with that, I understand why my comment is unwanted. I think that it's wrong, a generalisation we wouldn't accept in other fields. I will refrain from making examples as I don't want to sound even more pretentious.
I guess I made my stand, I'll refrain coming back to this post at this point.
wow what utter horseshit
the first AI winter happened because those fuckers couldn’t stop grifting academic funds by promising shit that didn’t work. we know the history of the field better than you do. not that you had a point other than wanting to reply guy about a name we didn’t adopt (cause we’re not OpenAI) for a technology all of us strongly dislike.
fucking pointless shit
Lisp curmudgeons getting incorrected about AI history:
I was trying to figure out how to make a really good
[lisp machine intensifies]without overly relying on history, but you got me beat hereThank you for the belly laugh!
wait a fucking minute
you came here to lecture us and you think algorithms from the field of AI only started seeing serious use in the 80s? the Mark I Perceptron was built in 1958
(I admittedly didn’t know about the machine before today, but I know more than enough about AI to know perceptrons as software are old as hell)
Pretentious? Try haughty.
AI isn’t “just overpowered statistics”. What you said betrays your lack of understanding of both statistics and AI.
Overly power hungry statistics
Statistics where you substitute knowledge with power?