Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B

Bazoogle

@ Bazoogle @lemmy.world

Posts
0
Comments
353
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • There's no such thing as Just a Tool

    Jump

  • I don’t understand why you bring guns into this argument

    Because it is a tool with a use that is used for bad things, like people are arguing with AI

    For most people, LLMs do make it specifically easier to skip learning than to enhance learning. We can see this in practice where teachers are noticing higher grades for homework but lower grades for the final exams.

    This is going to be especially true for children. Virtually unrestricted AI should not be accessible to kids. If they have access to AI, it should be one that acts as a teacher or private tutor that will help them learn but not give them the answer. Until we can control AI like that, they shouldn't have access to it.

    But we do not have an easy measurement for adults. We have anecdotal experience and vibes. It's also entirely up to the person how effective the use of the tool is.

    you could say buying a lottery ticket can be both a bad and a good financial decision

    This would only be a good comparison if your actions had any impact on your chances of winning. It isn't random chance how AI is used.

    I think a better comparison would be drug usage. Prescription drug usage used properly can turn someone's life around, objectively improving their life. Obviously abuse of drugs has ruined many lives, and ended many others. We are not saying we should get rid of drugs though.

    Drugs are heavily controlled by professionals because of their ability to be abused. It used to be that coke was in soda's and you could buy opioids over the counter. We learned about their addictive properties and dangers, and they were regulaged.

    Perhaps we will some day have a method to control AIs abuse/addiction. It would no doubt look entirely different from controlled substances. Maybe there is a way to have personal accounts only help people learn, and rather that giving them answers it might guide them to learning for themselves. Who knows what this technology might look like in the future

  • There's no such thing as Just a Tool

    Jump

  • Saying you can do both good and bad with any tool is misleading if the tool makes it easier to do the bad thing

    This arguement simply does not hold up. Tools can, and often are, used for things they were not intended for. An effective hammer is going to be made of metal and have a decent heft to it. Having a hammer would also make it much easier to bash in someone's head, (making it easier to do a bad thing).

    A gun is designed to kill people, making people more likely to murder. The only people that have a realistic argent for needing guns are going to be police and military, and of course hunters with rifles.

    The biggest problem with AI is how wide of a scope the tool applies to. Most tools have a much more narrow use case. AI is designed to be extremely versatile. You could use it to get customized lesson plans yo help structure your learning. Or you could skip the learning and have it give you the answer. It is a tool either way

  • There's no such thing as Just a Tool

    Jump

  • Of course he refutes them. He establishes the points to argue against them. The problem is he is setting up a straw man to argue against. I know the whole arguement is about how AI isn't "just a tool", except that it is. The difference is how you define a "tool" and he establishef an odd definition of tool to argue against

  • There's no such thing as Just a Tool

    Jump

  • I do not think their assumptions for the baseline of the article are accurate:

    The technology being discussed has no bearing on the attitudes or ideologies of the person holding it: use or non-use is ideologically neutral.

    Why does use of a tool need to be ideologically neutral? Why draw this conclusion? Someone refusing to use a hammer would very clearly suggest some sort of ideology for why. In fact, entire religions refuse to use power tools for ideological reasons.

    The technology being discussed can be effectively separated from the people using it: nothing can be inferred about a person from the technologies that they use.

    You can infer a lot about the tools someone chooses to use.

    The technology is used fully consciously: you are always fully aware that you are using a technology and have complete volitional freedom to use a different technology at any time.

    I think this was more true prior to computers and the internet, but there are plenty of tools we use unwittingly. The freedom to use a different technology is always a physical possibility, but not always a practical one. If you had to drive a nail, and you had with you a hammer and a rock, you could choose to use the rock if you wanted.

    The technology does not influence the kinds of things likely to be done with it: use of the technology doesn't tend to encourage one course of action over another ("guns don't kill people, people do").

    Tools have an intended use. They 100% influence the kinds of things likely to be done with it. A hammer is likely to be use to drive nails. A gun is designed to kill. While the gun doesn't "kill people", it sure makes it a hell of a lot easier... because that's what it was designed to do. Just like a hammer makes it a lot easier to drive a nail.

    The consequence of these statements being true is that the only valid criticism of a tool or technology becomes how well it performs the task that it's designed to perform. You cannot, for example, say that a tool teaches bad habits, because if it isn't explicitly a teaching tool what it teaches people becomes out-of-bounds for discussion.

    The problem is they were never thought to be true. This is based on a false premise.

    Tools absolutely do teach bad habits. Especially when you consider a cell phone a tool, or a computer a tool. We often are making a trade off using tools, but many times we consider those trade offs worth it.

    If you have a power drill that dies, most people aren't grabbing a screwdriver and manually screwing in every screw for a wood working project. The pros of the power drill are the massive difference in speed, and removing the physical strain on your muscles and joints that can do serious damage over time. The major con is now you are beholden to a company to purchase a power tool from. If it's battery powered, you have to make sure you have their battery and their charger, and also have to purchase replacements if those ever die. Obviously the tradeoff is worth it to most with a power drill vs screwdriver (and nobody is considering using your bare hands), but there absolutely is a tradeoff and we can discuss that when discussing tools.

    A common refrain when critiquing specific technologies in this way is that engineers will say that a given technology is "just a tool"

    That is only if the critique about the technologies is about its morality.

    When someone says "AI is just a tool" they are actually saying it can enable people to do very good or very bad things. People might respond with "AI is just a tool" if someone says AI is evil, because machine learning is not evil, it is a technology.

    It's also worth noting, that just because it's a tool does not mean everyone should have access to it. There are plenty of tools that are restricted to specialists by law, or controlled more heavily. They are still tools, but they are tools that can cause a lot of harm if used incorrectly.

    I did not read the entire article because it started off with these false premises. I also recognize that most people will not read everything I have written, and that's fine as well.

  • Dead YT channels that you stay subscribed to and visit every now and then?

    Jump

  • Bill Wurtz channel isn't dead. He just spends a lot of time on his videos

  • Deleted

    How do I handle my anger towards management

    Jump

  • Do you get insurance through your job? Also, taxes would be a nightmare

  • Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI

    Jump

  • Rare does not mean good. I could write a novel, and it would be fucking atrocious. If I released 5 copies, it would be extremely rare, but it wouldn't be worth shit.

  • Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI

    Jump

  • They would only need a single copy of each book. They aren't trying to get all possible copies to prevent others from getting them. They are trying to train their AI as quickly and cheaply as possible

  • Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI

    Jump

  • Except when they are digitized and made publicly avaiable

  • Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI

    Jump

  • That is probably the ultimate conclusion. Except there will be some bullshit exception for Disney and all the other mega media corporations.

  • Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI

    Jump

  • It's like if Fahrenheit 451 had the firefighters meticulously remove the spines and digitize the books before burning them. Amazon is buying a single copy of these books, and destroying the books to make it faster to digitize. Just not at all book burning.

    You should be pissed about them using other peoples works to train their AI behemoth for profit. Not make a false equivalence to book burning...

  • Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI

    Jump

  • They were purchased from Biblio. Literally Biblio's tagline: "Used Books and Rare Books from Antiquarian Booksellers"

  • Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI

    Jump

  • The answer to that question is obvious. They can do it 1000x faster cutting the spin and sending all the pages through a scanner. Otherwise you have to have something flip through every page and take a picture.

  • Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

    Jump

  • What is mediocre about it? What would be an example of a good browser, and what are the differences?

  • Linus Torvalds says AI has made 'huge' Linux kernel updates the new normal

    Jump

  • That's what I said. AI haters are attacking, and he was defending against them, telling them to look in a mirror

  • uBlock Origin Is Giving Up the Fight to Keep Ads Off Facebook

    Jump

  • It's not a matter of technical implementation, but a procedural one. It was never a secret, it was just too expensive and impractical to do. If you changed how you implement ads every single day, the ad blockers would have to change their rules every day. Just keep going forever, and eventually the adblockers won't have the resources to keep up.

    It's like if a food truck driver was trying to operate without a permit. If they sat in the same spot every day, officials would see them and easily catch them. If they moved to different apots around town every day and repainted their truck, they could evade officials. That's not a secret, it's just that it's more work than it's worth. While not a great analogy for many reasons, the idea is that it was never a secret how to get past ad blockers. It was just never worth the money. You'd spend more money implementing the evasion than you'd get back from the ad revenue.

    At this point yhey are probably using AI to do the job of adjusting ad formats, so humans especially couldn't keep up. Perhaps AI could be used to counteract it, but that's expensive to setup and keep running. A free software obviously can't aford that.

    Sure, they could have been silent about it, but they would still get reports about missed ads. There would be enough hubbub online they'd eventually have to address. Maybe this way they can use the attenion to get more contributors

  • Linus Torvalds says AI has made 'huge' Linux kernel updates the new normal

    Jump

  • I'm not sure you understood. That quote is defending against AI haters

  • Linus Torvalds says AI has made 'huge' Linux kernel updates the new normal

    Jump

  • What stand does he take? "Don't use AI"? How does he enforce that? He is working with volunteers, so it's not like he can cut their pay

  • uBlock Origin Is Giving Up the Fight to Keep Ads Off Facebook

    Jump

  • Companies absolutely can pay people solely to combat ad blockers. That will always win. Facebook doesn't have a "system" other than always changing their system. Any company can constantly change how they display ads. The ad blockers are just always playing catch up until the corporation exhausts the volunteers energy.

    If the solution is to get new volunteers to keep up the work, why don't we have people willing to take on that role? Most people that have the know how arent using facebook anyway, so there's no motivation from them.

    Without legislature to enforce some rules on corporations, the ones with the money will always win.

  • What YouTubers have you watched for a long time and still find worth returning to?

    Jump

  • I disagree. His videos are still good, and his experience with the every day scrubber built in America has been very interesting. He has only mentioned he's a Christian a few times in his videos.