I think that some of the criticism levied at AI, certainly in the way that it is used under neoliberal capitalism, is absolutely valid. And i have my own worries about how it may affect human development going forward when you can essentially “cheat” your way to answers to a broad array of problems without ever having put in the work to really learn and understand the subject you are dealing with.
But we have to acknowledge that, good or bad, this is still a powerful tool. The question is, how should socialist societies approach this new tool? And unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint), i think we’re already past the point where we can afford not to use it. Pandora’s box has already been opened and there’s no turning back the clock.
In a way this is a bit like the atom bomb. Yes, it may be dangerous and perhaps humanity would be better off if it had never been invented. But the one thing we can’t do is allow only the enemies of socialism to possess this weapon.
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse someone of Luddism, let alone anti-communism, just because they have reservations or skepticism about a new technology, especially one that is already being misused by capitalist interests to harm workers. There also seems to be some disagreement about the terminology, in sense that some of the things you call “AI” someone else might not see as such. So first everyone needs to agree on what “AI” even is.
Of course in a general sense automation has immense potential to benefit us as a species. The question is whether certain aspects of what is now called “AI” really do constitute useful automation, particularly when it comes to generating large amounts of what is essentially garbage content. I think we should be careful making pronouncements this early.
My view is that we need to wait and see how this technology will develop and what impact it will really have on society in the long term. What i am sure about though is that this technology is here to stay whether we like it or not.
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse someone of Luddism, let alone anti-communism, just because they have reservations or skepticism about a new technology,
I appreciate you saying this. Very strange to see someone immediately attack someone else just because I don’t share their enthusiasm
AI is largely used interchangeably with an ANN. Sometimes companies might use it even more broadly than ANN for marketing purposes, but if you actually go take a class in AI at university you will be learning about ANNs.
We used ANNs for research back in my uni days long before the “AI” hype began. If that is all that is meant by “AI” then that is a category so broad as to make any discussion of whether it’s good or bad virtually pointless, because there are so many different shapes that an ANN can take and so many functions they can fulfil that nobody actually knows what it is actually, concretely, that is being debated.
That’s… the point. That’s like, literally the entire point I am making. It makes no sense to be “anti-AI” because AI is such an incredibly broad spectrum of technology. It’s fine to be critical of specific applications of AI (indeed, there are many examples of AI making things worse or even being used for evil) but being “anti-AI” in an absolute sense is an incredibly dogmatic and entirely unreasonable position and I am utterly appalled so many people here are unironically trying to defend it.
Exactly. A lot of the points that pcalau12imakes, muddies that distinction in favor of LLMs and gives credit to LLM development when it is in fact a different field that is responsible for those advances
Sure, but no one uses the term ANN. It is basically useless and not even that precise. I agree that calling LLMs AI is pretty misleading. But it is better to call them what they are. If you want umbrella term for LLMs, computer vision, reinforcement learning etc. I would go with machine learning instead of ANN. Even in universities, you won’t learn much about ANN (as in the mathematic model) aside from like first lecture.
There are many approaches in machine learning and some, not all of them, use ANN.
No one uses the term ANN because most people don’t know what it means so it’s not good for marketing, so AI is used in its place, but it refers to the same kind of technology. Machine learning isn’t a good replacement precisely for the reason you say: it is broad and includes things that aren’t ANNs and would not fit under what is generally understood to be AI. If a person bought a piece of tech that said it is powered by AI and used something like a k-means clustering algorithm they probably would feel a bit ripped off and would expect something with an actual AI model that does intelligent processing, they would expect something that could take advantage of an AI accelerator, which is the consumer-end name for a piece of hardware that does AI inferencing, which is specific to ANNs!
It is just undeniably true that when “AI” is used in the overwhelming majority of articles, papers, etc these days people very specifically have ANNs in mind. If you deny this you are just denying factual reality, you are denying that 2+2=4 and that point you are being too unreasonable to carry on the discussion with. I am going to tap out of this discussion as none of y’all are being reasonable in the slightest and stretching to the moon to look for “gotchas” to justify a reactionary anti-technology stance and refusing to listen to someone with background in this field.
The AI Derangement Syndrome mind virus seems to impervious to reason and people will come up with any excuse to justify it. I refuse to engage with this further. Stop replying to me, I do not care to engage further. I do not want to argue with 4 people at once trying to pull out excuses to why it’s somehow evil for China to invest in technology because muh AI scawy. If you are willing to be educated to understand why this technology is important, educated from someone who has a computer science degree and works in this field, then I can teach you, but none of you want to learn and just want to play word games to justify your anti-AI hysteria and I have no interest in engaging with this.
I won’t claim authority on the subject but you are the first person to make this claim, that I have ever read. I do not think this is a commonly accepted viewpoint. At least until a couple years ago it seemed to me that there was an attempt to avoid calling Neural Networks artificial intelligence because of the previous AI hype cycles and winters that occurred
I think it’s far more telling how you conflate automation with Large Language Models (colloquially being called AI even though it’s not).
Much of those technologies that you cite as examples and call AI (OCR, computer vision), I don’t understand why you do that. Those technologies existed long before LLMs.
I find the protein folding example especially perplexing since protein folding simulation existed far, far before LLMs and machine learning, and it is ahistorical to claim those as being AI innovations.
I don’t agree with your AI boosterism, but I think what is more perplexing is how misinformed it is.
They are all artificial neural networks, which is what “AI” typically means… bro you literally know nothing about this topic. No investigation, no right to speak. You need to stop talking.
bro you literally know nothing about this topic. No investigation, no right to speak. You need to stop talking.
You are toxic, as well as being incredibly arrogant. A true example of Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to have a tantrum then by all means do so, but don’t pretend that you are on some sort of high ground when you make your pronouncements.
Every conversation you have had with me, you project opinions that I do not have (maxism vs anarchism, calling me a luddite, etc) and construct strawmen arguments that I did not make
I think AI is stupid, no matter if it’s China or America that is doing it. 🤷♂️
I think that some of the criticism levied at AI, certainly in the way that it is used under neoliberal capitalism, is absolutely valid. And i have my own worries about how it may affect human development going forward when you can essentially “cheat” your way to answers to a broad array of problems without ever having put in the work to really learn and understand the subject you are dealing with.
But we have to acknowledge that, good or bad, this is still a powerful tool. The question is, how should socialist societies approach this new tool? And unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint), i think we’re already past the point where we can afford not to use it. Pandora’s box has already been opened and there’s no turning back the clock.
In a way this is a bit like the atom bomb. Yes, it may be dangerous and perhaps humanity would be better off if it had never been invented. But the one thing we can’t do is allow only the enemies of socialism to possess this weapon.
I don’t see how one can reconcile being anti-technology with being a Marxist. You’d be better served in an anarchist community.
It’s very silly to say that because I don’t like LLMs, that I’m anti-technology.
You are, you’re opposed to automation technology, that’s literally Luddism, which is a form of anti-communism.
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse someone of Luddism, let alone anti-communism, just because they have reservations or skepticism about a new technology, especially one that is already being misused by capitalist interests to harm workers. There also seems to be some disagreement about the terminology, in sense that some of the things you call “AI” someone else might not see as such. So first everyone needs to agree on what “AI” even is.
Of course in a general sense automation has immense potential to benefit us as a species. The question is whether certain aspects of what is now called “AI” really do constitute useful automation, particularly when it comes to generating large amounts of what is essentially garbage content. I think we should be careful making pronouncements this early.
My view is that we need to wait and see how this technology will develop and what impact it will really have on society in the long term. What i am sure about though is that this technology is here to stay whether we like it or not.
I appreciate you saying this. Very strange to see someone immediately attack someone else just because I don’t share their enthusiasm
AI is largely used interchangeably with an ANN. Sometimes companies might use it even more broadly than ANN for marketing purposes, but if you actually go take a class in AI at university you will be learning about ANNs.
We used ANNs for research back in my uni days long before the “AI” hype began. If that is all that is meant by “AI” then that is a category so broad as to make any discussion of whether it’s good or bad virtually pointless, because there are so many different shapes that an ANN can take and so many functions they can fulfil that nobody actually knows what it is actually, concretely, that is being debated.
That’s… the point. That’s like, literally the entire point I am making. It makes no sense to be “anti-AI” because AI is such an incredibly broad spectrum of technology. It’s fine to be critical of specific applications of AI (indeed, there are many examples of AI making things worse or even being used for evil) but being “anti-AI” in an absolute sense is an incredibly dogmatic and entirely unreasonable position and I am utterly appalled so many people here are unironically trying to defend it.
Exactly. A lot of the points that
pcalau12imakes, muddies that distinction in favor of LLMs and gives credit to LLM development when it is in fact a different field that is responsible for those advancesSure, but no one uses the term ANN. It is basically useless and not even that precise. I agree that calling LLMs AI is pretty misleading. But it is better to call them what they are. If you want umbrella term for LLMs, computer vision, reinforcement learning etc. I would go with machine learning instead of ANN. Even in universities, you won’t learn much about ANN (as in the mathematic model) aside from like first lecture.
There are many approaches in machine learning and some, not all of them, use ANN.
No one uses the term ANN because most people don’t know what it means so it’s not good for marketing, so AI is used in its place, but it refers to the same kind of technology. Machine learning isn’t a good replacement precisely for the reason you say: it is broad and includes things that aren’t ANNs and would not fit under what is generally understood to be AI. If a person bought a piece of tech that said it is powered by AI and used something like a k-means clustering algorithm they probably would feel a bit ripped off and would expect something with an actual AI model that does intelligent processing, they would expect something that could take advantage of an AI accelerator, which is the consumer-end name for a piece of hardware that does AI inferencing, which is specific to ANNs!
It is just undeniably true that when “AI” is used in the overwhelming majority of articles, papers, etc these days people very specifically have ANNs in mind. If you deny this you are just denying factual reality, you are denying that 2+2=4 and that point you are being too unreasonable to carry on the discussion with. I am going to tap out of this discussion as none of y’all are being reasonable in the slightest and stretching to the moon to look for “gotchas” to justify a reactionary anti-technology stance and refusing to listen to someone with background in this field.
The AI Derangement Syndrome mind virus seems to impervious to reason and people will come up with any excuse to justify it. I refuse to engage with this further. Stop replying to me, I do not care to engage further. I do not want to argue with 4 people at once trying to pull out excuses to why it’s somehow evil for China to invest in technology because muh AI scawy. If you are willing to be educated to understand why this technology is important, educated from someone who has a computer science degree and works in this field, then I can teach you, but none of you want to learn and just want to play word games to justify your anti-AI hysteria and I have no interest in engaging with this.
I won’t claim authority on the subject but you are the first person to make this claim, that I have ever read. I do not think this is a commonly accepted viewpoint. At least until a couple years ago it seemed to me that there was an attempt to avoid calling Neural Networks artificial intelligence because of the previous AI hype cycles and winters that occurred
I think it’s far more telling how you conflate automation with Large Language Models (colloquially being called AI even though it’s not).
Much of those technologies that you cite as examples and call AI (OCR, computer vision), I don’t understand why you do that. Those technologies existed long before LLMs.
I find the protein folding example especially perplexing since protein folding simulation existed far, far before LLMs and machine learning, and it is ahistorical to claim those as being AI innovations.
I don’t agree with your AI boosterism, but I think what is more perplexing is how misinformed it is.
They are all artificial neural networks, which is what “AI” typically means… bro you literally know nothing about this topic. No investigation, no right to speak. You need to stop talking.
You are toxic, as well as being incredibly arrogant. A true example of Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to have a tantrum then by all means do so, but don’t pretend that you are on some sort of high ground when you make your pronouncements.
Every conversation you have had with me, you project opinions that I do not have (maxism vs anarchism, calling me a luddite, etc) and construct strawmen arguments that I did not make
Do some self crit