deleted by creator

deleted by creator

.

.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

There is the left and there is uncritically praising China and Russia as the best countries in the world (while probably not living there) ignoring a whole series of facts.

Removed by mod

It’s the equivalent of a “beware of the dog” sign: sometimes it’s just a puppy, but sometimes it’s rabid.

If you say so.

I think that today some people live in an internet bubble reinforcing each other’s ideas without anyone saying “maybe you are exaggerating”. It’s true in general, not just for AI. When I talk with RL friends who are not such “internet nerds” as me, their views are much less black and white than mine… and I’m not remotely as black and white as some people here.

Back in topic, would you be that negative if AI’s issues were addressed and solved? Because they will be addressed and solved. It’s a basic business need to minimise costs (energy, water) and solve legal disputes (copyright).

First, mobile phones were extremely common in 2005 (20 years ago), even I had one, and I was literally a child.

My mistake, I meant modern smartphones.

I wonder if there were people in the 80s and 90s (when mobile phones were actually rare, but becoming more common) who felt the same pure, visceral disgust for them that I feel for LLMs.

Disgust no, but it was something for people in business, so non-business people could be ridiculed. Also consider that the equivalent of social media was the pub at the corner so those who may have had a “visceral disgust” didn’t have a chance to find others with their extreme vision. People were more moderate on average without the modern internet bubbles in which any crazy idea finds a club of supporters.

Ironically you just said that artists are wrong to be concerned.

I see your point. Assuming that in the future we will consume content as we do today, you are probably right.

My point is a bit different though: things will change. Famously in the 70s somebody didn’t see the point of having a computer at home because nobody would need the stuff that computers could do in that period. Then needs changed, new needs came, computers evolved, and now we have computers even in our pockets. With AI it will likely be the same.

with art the living standard is already effectively “maxed out”

Quite frankly, it’s not. Now “video on demand” means that you can sit on your couch and start the movie when you want. Tomorrow it may mean that you will also decide the content. Another sequel of Star Wars? Sure! A new season of Game of Thrones? No problem!

Moreover, AI is being used to create products and also in scientific research. It’s already improving our standards.

Yes but it should disappear back into the direction of many smaller websites and more privacy, not in the direction of all of that texture being totally consumed by LLM generated search results and everyone further congregating on a smaller number of sites that collect every iota of data possible.

My guess? AI will kill the cheap stuff, but internet will not change much overall and surely not rapidly.

maybe it’s cause the models are beginning to consume their own slop.

That’s going to be a huge issue indeed because synthetic data contains bias and it’s proven that produced biased models.

Although you’re not wrong, you should consider that what’s normal for you today fucked somebody’s job yesterday.

Small time artists are fucked

Textile workers have been fucked by machines, same for anyone working with horses was fucked by cars, and mass production fucked more of less any job that existed before… or not? Those jobs still exist today, they are just less prevalent and often a well paid niche.

Internet search is fucked.

The internet we know today with SEO and ads-driven businesses had been around for 20-30 years max and it is now a dumpster on fire with all the user tracking that has been put in place. We won’t miss it should it disappear.

Absolutely correct.

One random example: where I work, CVs are being filtered by an AI before they are opened by a human reducing the volume to a 20% of potentially good candidates. In that 20% there is always someone to hire, so it doesn’t matter if a good candidate is lost in the AI filter. Failing to optimize the CV for AI literally means being left behind.