Not a ragebait post.
I started thinking why I hate AI and it’s mostly:
- It is pushed down my throat very hard for what it does;
- The unauthorized use of content on the internet;
- The worsening of the environmental crisis;
- The content it generates is shit.
I am wondering do you have other arguments against it?
Name a major AI company that isn’t currently attempting to circumvent government agencies and usurp the democratic power of control away from the citizens.
that’s reason number 1.
reason number 2. I never trust any solution that has to be forced on people. I have to provide proof that I use it in my job because they made it a KPI. think about that. my employment is 100% contingent on proof that I’m forced to provide that doesn’t add anything positive to my role. why in the fuck would this even be required?? if it quacks like a piece of shit, and smells like a piece of shit…
reason 3, because the conservation of human expression is important to me. from simple artistic expression to spoken or written word. all are sacred to me and anything that attempts to eliminate and emulate that expression is only a form of oppression against those who express.
I never trust any solution that has to be forced on people.
This is a point that doesn’t seem to catch on with people.
When the plough was introduced, nobody looked at it and couldn’t see that it was useful. Its utility was really obvious, especially in the specific cases where ploughs shine. People would change the way they planted and harvested to suit ploughing, the advantages were so obvious in most cases. The same kind of thing applies to fountain pens over dipped goose feathers. To electrical lights over candles. To wheels over log rollers. To personal computers over slide rules. To … well, pretty much every revolutionary technology in history. People may not have changed right away (as with PCs, say) because of the cost issue, or the like, but nobody looked at them and wondered what they could possibly be used for.
After several years now, LLMbecile-pushing companies are trying to FORCE people to use their “AI” products, to the point of companies mandating their use. (I must have missed the part where Apple forced a fondleslab—modern smartphone—on everybody until people figured out how to use them.) This degree of attempting to force them into every orifice of the human user smacks of intense desperation, not of technology whose benefit is obvious.
LLMs are a tool with vanishingly narrow legitimate and justifiable use cases. If they can prove to be truly effective and defensible in an application, I’m OK with them being used in targeted ways much like any other specialised tool in a kit.
That said, I’m yet to identify any use of LLMs today which clears my technical and ethical barriers to justify their use.
My experience to date is the majority of ‘AI’ advocates are functionally slopvangelical LLM thumpers, and should be afforded respect and deference equivalent to anyone who adheres to a faith I don’t share.
It blurs the line of accountibility, and it provides the facade of super intelligence, leading to negligent use of it.
AI cannot be held accountable. It physically can’t. You can’t criminally charge, fine, or imprison an algorithm. IBM reasons that because of this, it should not hold any position of management, or make major decisions autonomously.
Despite that, we are constantly see being used in increasingly high stakes desicions, and advising of such. AI lawyers, politicians using it to communicate with their voters and “summarizing” their concerns, AI in HR management, AI professors (as well as professors using AI) and the list goes on. There is no recourse for malpractice in these scenarios, and allows bad actors to work with impunity. Nothing ever stopped anyone from spewing nonsense, that’s what freedom of speech is for, but the reputation of such peoples would be tarnished, theyd become outcasts in their field, and their writings disregarded. AI blurs that once again.
Closely related to the issue of liability, is the negligent use of AI. If someone wanted to create misinformation, they had to have malicious intent. Now, out of pure laziness, or profit driven desire, most content has become AI. With all of it its hallucinations and delusions included. Because AI training data now includes AI content, these delusions cause the model to become “inbred” which cause it repeat its own lies, until its regurgitated as fact.
This in turns causes a death of truth, and all profesions who hinge on providing the truth. Journalists, researches, scientists, publishers and writers of academic journals, as well as small communities of hobbyists, being drowned in misinformation about their own niche craft. It destroys and buries real, truthful and productive conversation, while hindering all intellectual progress.
Its existence is a fantasy for anti-intellectual actors, which include government, and large corporate entities who’s greatest enemy is a well informed, and educated public.
As a philosophical stance, I feel humans should use tools, not the other way around. AI is a tool that uses those who attempt to use it.
AI “art” as most people understand it perverts the natural relationship between artist and medium. It inverts it, using the human to give it the one thing it cannot generate, an idea, then produces an approximation of “art”. A satisfying result with an AI generated image demonstrates a lack of vision on the part the of the user, they were likely never really clear on what they wanted, not the power of the generative model.
Asking AI for answers or to give an overview of a subject seems harmless, but it can’t be trusted to understand the unique context and needs of each user or to highlight what details are truly pertinent in that place or time. Again, it inverts the relationship between human and information, even if what has been generated is factually correct. It over-simplifies relationships and concepts in ways that are dangerous when nuance has been systematically stripped from public discourse for the last few decades. We need information to decide how to act in a given context, AI seems to attempt to change our understanding of that context to match the information it provides.
It’s necessary to accept that you don’t have complete control over the world around around you, but that doesn’t mean we should accept a lack of control over our own understanding of that world.
