Let’s cook the fucking planet so we can generate stupid images we’re too lazy to photoshop! What’s not to like? More fossil fueled plagiarized bullshit so I don’t have to think please!
Edit: Looks like I struck a nerve with some people who are, similarly to “AI”, confidently incorrect about a few things. I’m not even saying LLM can’t be used for good, it has, but I am saying that it is being used for a lot of bad shit and it’s being powered by a lot of bad shit on top of that.
Think about that before you start hyping “AI” and attacking anyone who criticizes it because there’s some valid criticisms that are very dangerous to ignore.
You’re correct in a technical sense but incorrect in a social sense. In 2025, “AI” in the common vernacular means LLMs. You can huff and puff about it, and about how there are plenty of non-LLM AIs out there. But you might as well complain that people mean silicon-based Turing-complete machines when they refer to a “computer,” even though technically a computer can mean many other things. You might as well be complaining about how a computer could refer to someone that does calculations by hand for a living. Or you could refer to something like Babbage’s difference engine as a computer. There are many things that can technically fall under the category of “computer.” But you know damn well what people are saying when they describe a computer. And hell, in common vernacular, a smart phone isn’t even a “computer,” even though it literally is just a computer. Words have both technical and vernacular meanings.
In 2025, in the language real speak in the real world, “AI” is a synonym for “LLM.”
That’s really the crux of this stupid argument. Is a neural network that analyzes x-rays before handing them to a doctor AI? I would say no. At this point, AI means “over hyped LLM and other generalist models.” But the person trying to judge others over AI would say yes.
It’s a failure of our education systems that people don’t know what a computer is, something they interact with every day.
While the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis might be bunk, I’m convinced that if you go up one level in language structure there is a version of it that is true. That is treating words as if they don’t need a consistent definition melts your brain. For the same reason that explaining a problem to someone else helps you solve it, doing the opposite and untethering your thoughts from self-consistant explanations stops you from explaining them even to yourself, and therefore harms your ability to think.
I wonder if this plays some part in how ChatGPT use apparently makes people dumber, that it could be not only because they become accustomed to not having to think, but because they become conditioned to accept text that is essentially void of consistent meaning.
Also, some things are called AI that aren’t. People are freaking out as soon as the term is mentioned without checking if it’s actually some sort of model or if it’s just a basic algorithm with a buzzword tossed on.
How often do you think that this confusing actually results in people acting as described in the tweet?
Context matters, and the people who are the audience for tweets about stockfish are aware of the nuance. Outside of niche communities, “AI” without additional explicit context means LLMs for the vast vast majority of the time.
If this isn’t a strawman, then it’s at least a misleading argument.
Saying AI = LLMs is an severe oversimplification though. LLMs and image generators are subsets of AI that are currently most prominent and with which is most commonly knowingly being interacted with, but pretty much every formal definition is wider than that. Recommendation algorithms, as used on YouTube or social media, the smart (photo) search, are further examples of AI that people interact with. And fraud detection, learning spam filters, abnormality (failure) detection, traffic estimation are even more examples. All of these things are formally defined as AI and are very much commonplace, I would not call them niche.
The fact that LLMs and image generators are currently the most prominent examples does not necessarily exclude other examples from being part of the group too.
Using AI as a catch all phrase is simply a case of overgeneralization, in part due to the need of brevity. For some cases the difference does not matter, or is even beneficial. For example, ‘don’t train AI models on my art’ would only marginally affect applications other than image generation and image analysis, and covers any potential future applications that may pop up.
However, statements ‘ban AI’ could be easily misconstrued, and may be interpreted in a much wider manner than what the original author may have intended. There will be people with a variety of definitions to what does or does not constitute AI, which will lead to miscommunication unless it is clear from context.
It probably wouldn’t hurt clarifying things specifically and talking about the impact of a specific application, rather than discussing what is (or is not) to be classified as AI.
It’s like you saw my response, and processed exactly none of it before you replied.
Did I say this is how it should be? No. I was describing the way it actually is. It’s not me who is oversimplify, this is just the way it is used in pop culture. It doesn’t matter at all how much you don’t like that, because we cannot be prescriptive about actually irl usage of a word.
Am I personally aware of the difference? Yes. I work with LLMs every day as part of my job, both as a tool and as a product.
None of this, or what you wrote, changes that in common discourse, outside of niche communities, “AI” is synonymous with “LLM” and GPT content image generators, almost exclusively, unless other context is provided.
So when people see “AI” in common discourse, they’re almost always right to assume it means LLMs and GPT content generators.
Tbh in my experience LLM and other recently developed techniques such as stable diffusion are referred to as GenAI by most lay people. For both lay people and technical audience, i.e. people who work in machine learning, AI has a much broader significance.
The people I see using “gen AI” are people who are peripheral to the experts or enthusiasts (be it enthusiastically for or against).
They’re not the people making the LLMs, they’re the people integrating LLMs into their own products, or they’re part or sales or procurement for such products. Gen-ai is very much the b2b marketing speak for these technologies.
But I don’t see it used as often in the broader context of social media or mainstream media, outside of the niches that those experts and enthusiasts frequent.
“AI” in videogames is basically never powered by large models like LLMs or Stable Diffusion or others. The fact you compare them only demonstrates how fucking little you actually know about this topic you are BLINDLY defending.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, most video game enemies do not learn. They can have some clever algorithms, but they don’t know anything about how you’ve responded in the past and which of their tactics work better against you. Have they been trained on player interaction at all? I would love to see some learning NPCs in games and would be happy to dial down graphics settings to power them instead.
I’m getting downvoted because there are too many morons who now think they know computer science just because they use “AI”… Such a pathetic lot literally ignorant to their own ignorance.
Let’s cook the fucking planet so we can generate stupid images we’re too lazy to photoshop!
Decided to look into it, and a loose estimate (it’s hard to find data on the power usage of photoshop) is that 1 minute of photoshop average is about 1 gen image at 4k output.
Which means depending on use case and experience, an AI spun up locally to make something quickly would use far less electricity
It’s broadly true, and that’s more to do with how it is used than what it is.
If an amoral corporation is providing it as a service, you can bet it’s using energy as cheap and dirty as it can get away with, and using as much water as it wants.
But that’s not the only way. You can run these things with renewable energy and no water. In those cases, the training is still a problem of course.
I agree with you in spirit, but I think at this point AI uses less global energy than video games, and the internet generally seems to think video games good, AI bad.
So sorry for criticizing AI for very serious problems that will affect me in my lifetime along with everyone I care about. What a piece of shit I am, please forgive me! AI is totally great and has no problems at all!
Wildly presumptive and incorrect statement about me, but you are right about data centers.
On that note, it’s worth pointing out that some fediverse instances are powered by renewables! It’s small compared to the Internet at large, but it’s a start.
Is this the new sub tweeting? Whining in a shitpost sub about how you got modded for continuing to support a logical fallacy after the mod said knock it off?
It was not a logical fallacy to begin with and I only had one comment and it was only to the guy who was attacked, not to anyone else.
What do you care so much where I talk about how obnoxious fuck_ai has become?
It’s a stupid cult, that doesn’t want any dissenting opinions and people are attacked for not being extreme enough. A sewer.
People hyping “AI” are the ones that seem like cultists to me. It’s not even artificial intelligence, they’re misusing the term to make money. They rebadged LLM.
Ahh yes, not the literal theft of billions of peoples’ work. Not prematurely replacing jobs with machines. Those are all totally cool things LLMs are doing!
I mean, I don’t believe copyright should even exist. But if that’s true, then companies likewise need to release all their models freely to the public, which they won’t.
“Copyright for me, not for thee” seems to be the mantra.
I beg to differ. Anti ai is way bigger on Lemmy than pro. You can see this even by the likes.
Second part is about semantics of ai. We use the term AI because that kind of stuck. Everybody uses the term. It makes no sense to every time rage about what it means specifically, especially since most people do fairly understand what it is.
Clearly they do not know what it is when they say, “LLMs and video game AI are the same thing!” No. No they aren’t. At all. In basically every case, they are wholly different.
No idea what you are talking about. The largest majority cals LLMs artificial intelligence. Because lnguistically, LLM is simply a subtyp of AI.
In public discourse and marketing, “AI” has become a blanket term for anything that learns and writes like a human, and LLMs fit the bill. So as a linguistic shortcut, when LLMs got popular, people replaced that specific kind of AI with just “AI. By definition, an LLM is a kind of AI, a specialized system trained on massive text to generate language, making it a clear hyponym of AI. That relationship justifies calling LLMs simply AI.
There is also because of generic reference: It’s easier to say “I used AI” than to specify “I prompted a 175B‑parameter transformer model.”
I sorry dude, but these are jusy linguistic mechanism at play. You can shout and complain so you want, it’s AI. It’s AI. Get over it, find a different hill to die on.
Yes, keep using language that implies amuch greater ability than it has. Keep using marketing terms that these corporations want you to use. Yes, keep simping for the rich people trying to make employees obsolete. They definitely won’t replace you as soon as “AI” is no longer a misnomer!
You must only be reading web forums like Lemmy/Reddit. I think society as a whole is very excited by the idea of AI.
Companies everywhere have been racing to be the first to add AI to their products, for instance. Not just tech bro companies either. Everybody.
Edit: so many downvotes and no comments. I see AI hype everywhere, it’s a fact. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, just that it isn’t limited to tech bros.
Yes, what it actually signifies is that markets are mostly run by supply side economics. In other words, the typical product creation story is that companies produce products and then try to shove them down everyone’s throats.
It’s hard to tell. I get on Lemmy/reddit and see all kinds of anti AI messages. But I look at what’s happening on things like TikTok and instagram, and people don’t seem to care. They like and share all the AI slop. Knowing it is AI slop.
The comment I was responding to was saying it is only tech bros hyping AI. I think that’s just not true. There’s a wide range of people hyping AI. Companies, governments, schools (when used the right way and not just cheating), etc…
As for public in general, I think most people just don’t care. They see the benefits of AI and don’t think about the negatives, so they just embrace it.
Overall, we saw mixed emotions around the rise of AI. 39% of Americans feel positive about AI while 20% feel negative. The most commonly expressed emotion was curiosity, followed by interest and worry.
People are most likely to say they are concerned (32%), curious (30%), and hopeful (27%) about artificial intelligence.
…
24% of respondents said AI will make our lives better. 41% of respondents think AI will make our lives both better and worse. Only 10% of respondents think AI will only make our lives worse
Saying society overall is excited might have been an overreach, but to say only tech bros are hyping this is far from reality. I think there’s plenty of people that are excited about AI. And I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing. More than 32% of people should be concerned about AI.
I couldn’t give a fuck less if you want to amuse yourself with scuffed images of anime girls with three tits and lobster claws. Knock yourself out.
But if you think people are going to sit politely while institutions inflict these bullshit techbro fidget spinners unto us at the cost of our humanity and the planet then you’ve lost the plot.
While you are correct that AI is a horrible source of greenhouse gas due to its insatiable need for power, I wouldn’t call the people using it the make pictures “too lazy to learn Photoshop”. Being able to draw is a talent not everyone has and it’s kind of amazing to be able to make a picture you see in your mind without having the innate talent to do so. That being said, the people who have the talent who’s art has been used to train these AI systems should be broadly compensated for their work being used in the AI models.
I despise whenever someone talks like this about drawing. Everyone can draw. Nobody was born being able to make masterpieces from day one. It’s not some mystical arte that only those with the Chosen One gene can do. It all comes down to a willingness to try and to learn. That’s it. Using “talent” to bar yourself from doing so is only doing yourself a disservice. Even drawing silly little stick men is still practice, and I can attest to that from both first and second-hand experience. Just pick up a pencil, or boot up paint on a computer (but please, at least download paint.net or something), and you’ll find that you can indeed draw, you just have to do it enough to gain confidence. It’s like walking, or driving a car. I don’t see anyone saying that some people have innate driving talent and some don’t.
That’s absolute bullshit. I spent years trying to get good at drawing. I bought lots of books on how to draw and was never able to make anything that didn’t look like it was made by a 5 year old. I even learned Photoshop and Illustrator cause I thought that those would be a gateway for me to get better. Spoilers, it didn’t.
So go fuck yourself with your “everyone can draw” horseshit argument. No, not everyone can draw. And it doesn’t just take “working hard at it till you’re good”. You have to have talent. I fucking don’t, as well as lots of others out there.
And I said in my comment as well as many other places, these AI drawing sites need to compensate the people who’s talent they, at this point in time, have stolen. Just because I think the technology has purpose doesn’t mean I don’t think that there are problems with it.
You know, Ben Shapiro is a failed hollywood screenwriter. Maybe you can jump on Fox News and become a panelist complaining that M&Ms can’t wear sexy shoes anymore or something, too.
Hence why I didn’t say people who don’t do it are lazy. Laziness is an inherently capitalist ideal, saying that those who aren’t constantly working are somehow lesser. However, those who don’t at least try tend to quote the idea of a “lack of talent”, which is simply not true or helpful. Everyone is able to draw, though some may need some help in doing so. It’s part of being alive.
Art can be made out of literally anything. Trash, pieces of fabric, some chalk on a sidewalk, spray cans, arrangement of random objects, sea shells, etc. People will still love to look at shitty sketches and cute chibis and eagerly repost that art. Your medium doesn’t have to be just paper and pencil, nor just an expensive digital screen and a paid paint program, but even then digital can be free. Kritia, MS Paint, Sketchbook, IbisPaint, Fossify Paint, and many more are free and easy to download on Android. Procreate is cheap and loved by many. There are people doing this shit on their phone with their finger and a lot of determination.
None of these artists started out making masterpieces, they had to take the time to get to where they are and learn. Thousands of free tutorials are online, on both YT and other social media platforms, for any kind of art medium. Years of work and practicing every day. Even for those who are making masterpieces now, they take probably days or weeks to finish off a major project, they can’t just pump that shit out.
If you can’t draw or photoshop images well, that’s fine, as not everyone is able to do that skill. I want to learn to draw, but I can recognize that I probably don’t have to time right now in my life to do that, nor will I likely be able to reach the level I dream of, and I accept that. But the moment you decide to get mad at the people opposing AI art and using AI to Photoshop, or you yourself ever use AI to do such acts, then I will gladly call you a lazy bastard. You can’t have your cake without the effort that others put in to do it, and if you’re doing it for commercial purposes, you should be dragged through the streets.
Art is art because a human put their thoughts and feelings behind it. It causes discussion, whether good, bad, happy, angry, etc. AI art is only amazing on the surface, “wow, we have the tech to do this” and then it stops being amazing. Either way am artist/digital designer or don’t make whatever it is you wanted. Using AI to make art is embarrassing.
yeah honestly I don’t really care much for AI art and I think the vast majority of it looks kind of creepy in the uncanny valley sense but at least I have the self-awareness to recognize that it is a personal preference. These anti-ai bros seem to have no distinction between “I don’t like <thing>” and “<thing> is unethical” on top of being just generally insufferable pricks so I try to avoid them as much as possible.
<thing> is unethical because it is an anti-social technology.
I was fine with cleverbot 10 or 15 years ago, but that was when the human mimicry was cute and funny, and didn’t threaten to kill all human-to-human contact online by smothering it to death.
Let’s cook the fucking planet so we can generate stupid images we’re too lazy to photoshop! What’s not to like? More fossil fueled plagiarized bullshit so I don’t have to think please!
Edit: Looks like I struck a nerve with some people who are, similarly to “AI”, confidently incorrect about a few things. I’m not even saying LLM can’t be used for good, it has, but I am saying that it is being used for a lot of bad shit and it’s being powered by a lot of bad shit on top of that.
Think about that before you start hyping “AI” and attacking anyone who criticizes it because there’s some valid criticisms that are very dangerous to ignore.
“AI” is not just LLMs or diffusion models, and that’s what I think OPs is about, like, do you also hate Stockfish? Or enemies in a videogame?
You’re correct in a technical sense but incorrect in a social sense. In 2025, “AI” in the common vernacular means LLMs. You can huff and puff about it, and about how there are plenty of non-LLM AIs out there. But you might as well complain that people mean silicon-based Turing-complete machines when they refer to a “computer,” even though technically a computer can mean many other things. You might as well be complaining about how a computer could refer to someone that does calculations by hand for a living. Or you could refer to something like Babbage’s difference engine as a computer. There are many things that can technically fall under the category of “computer.” But you know damn well what people are saying when they describe a computer. And hell, in common vernacular, a smart phone isn’t even a “computer,” even though it literally is just a computer. Words have both technical and vernacular meanings.
In 2025, in the language real speak in the real world, “AI” is a synonym for “LLM.”
That’s really the crux of this stupid argument. Is a neural network that analyzes x-rays before handing them to a doctor AI? I would say no. At this point, AI means “over hyped LLM and other generalist models.” But the person trying to judge others over AI would say yes.
The term “AI” is already pretty fuzzy even in the technical sense, but if that’s how you’re using it then it doesn’t mean anything at all.
Most people on Lemmy seem to define AI as “evil machine learning that i don’t like” vs non-AI as everything else. It’s a wee bit delusional.
It’s a failure of our education systems that people don’t know what a computer is, something they interact with every day.
While the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis might be bunk, I’m convinced that if you go up one level in language structure there is a version of it that is true. That is treating words as if they don’t need a consistent definition melts your brain. For the same reason that explaining a problem to someone else helps you solve it, doing the opposite and untethering your thoughts from self-consistant explanations stops you from explaining them even to yourself, and therefore harms your ability to think.
I wonder if this plays some part in how ChatGPT use apparently makes people dumber, that it could be not only because they become accustomed to not having to think, but because they become conditioned to accept text that is essentially void of consistent meaning.
That’s a great point and you are right, most people don’t know/don’t care about the technical differences
I hate stockfish because it keeps beating me >:(
Also, some things are called AI that aren’t. People are freaking out as soon as the term is mentioned without checking if it’s actually some sort of model or if it’s just a basic algorithm with a buzzword tossed on.
Exactly
How often do you think that this confusing actually results in people acting as described in the tweet?
Context matters, and the people who are the audience for tweets about stockfish are aware of the nuance. Outside of niche communities, “AI” without additional explicit context means LLMs for the vast vast majority of the time.
If this isn’t a strawman, then it’s at least a misleading argument.
Saying AI = LLMs is an severe oversimplification though. LLMs and image generators are subsets of AI that are currently most prominent and with which is most commonly knowingly being interacted with, but pretty much every formal definition is wider than that. Recommendation algorithms, as used on YouTube or social media, the smart (photo) search, are further examples of AI that people interact with. And fraud detection, learning spam filters, abnormality (failure) detection, traffic estimation are even more examples. All of these things are formally defined as AI and are very much commonplace, I would not call them niche.
The fact that LLMs and image generators are currently the most prominent examples does not necessarily exclude other examples from being part of the group too.
Using AI as a catch all phrase is simply a case of overgeneralization, in part due to the need of brevity. For some cases the difference does not matter, or is even beneficial. For example, ‘don’t train AI models on my art’ would only marginally affect applications other than image generation and image analysis, and covers any potential future applications that may pop up.
However, statements ‘ban AI’ could be easily misconstrued, and may be interpreted in a much wider manner than what the original author may have intended. There will be people with a variety of definitions to what does or does not constitute AI, which will lead to miscommunication unless it is clear from context.
It probably wouldn’t hurt clarifying things specifically and talking about the impact of a specific application, rather than discussing what is (or is not) to be classified as AI.
It’s like you saw my response, and processed exactly none of it before you replied.
Did I say this is how it should be? No. I was describing the way it actually is. It’s not me who is oversimplify, this is just the way it is used in pop culture. It doesn’t matter at all how much you don’t like that, because we cannot be prescriptive about actually irl usage of a word.
Am I personally aware of the difference? Yes. I work with LLMs every day as part of my job, both as a tool and as a product.
None of this, or what you wrote, changes that in common discourse, outside of niche communities, “AI” is synonymous with “LLM” and GPT content image generators, almost exclusively, unless other context is provided.
So when people see “AI” in common discourse, they’re almost always right to assume it means LLMs and GPT content generators.
Tbh in my experience LLM and other recently developed techniques such as stable diffusion are referred to as GenAI by most lay people. For both lay people and technical audience, i.e. people who work in machine learning, AI has a much broader significance.
The people I see using “gen AI” are people who are peripheral to the experts or enthusiasts (be it enthusiastically for or against).
They’re not the people making the LLMs, they’re the people integrating LLMs into their own products, or they’re part or sales or procurement for such products. Gen-ai is very much the b2b marketing speak for these technologies.
But I don’t see it used as often in the broader context of social media or mainstream media, outside of the niches that those experts and enthusiasts frequent.
Fair enough, that seems accurate!
“AI” in videogames is basically never powered by large models like LLMs or Stable Diffusion or others. The fact you compare them only demonstrates how fucking little you actually know about this topic you are BLINDLY defending.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, most video game enemies do not learn. They can have some clever algorithms, but they don’t know anything about how you’ve responded in the past and which of their tactics work better against you. Have they been trained on player interaction at all? I would love to see some learning NPCs in games and would be happy to dial down graphics settings to power them instead.
Most game ai is state machines and just extensions of the gameloop
I’m getting downvoted because there are too many morons who now think they know computer science just because they use “AI”… Such a pathetic lot literally ignorant to their own ignorance.
Decided to look into it, and a loose estimate (it’s hard to find data on the power usage of photoshop) is that 1 minute of photoshop average is about 1 gen image at 4k output.
Which means depending on use case and experience, an AI spun up locally to make something quickly would use far less electricity
Without training I assume? (Which on top of that almost always violates liscenses)
Without training, but once you’ve trained one model then that model can be used by millions.
An equivalent comparison would be the resources used by millions learning Photoshop in order to use it in the first place.
More like the resources used to develop Photoshop.
Well my iPhone 14 Pro gets really hot really quickly and the battery is comparable to a countdown app when I load a totally local LLM
You’re kinda proving the point of post. That’s literally what everyone here thinks of when someone says Ai
Because it’s true.
It’s broadly true, and that’s more to do with how it is used than what it is.
If an amoral corporation is providing it as a service, you can bet it’s using energy as cheap and dirty as it can get away with, and using as much water as it wants.
But that’s not the only way. You can run these things with renewable energy and no water. In those cases, the training is still a problem of course.
deleted by creator
I agree with you in spirit, but I think at this point AI uses less global energy than video games, and the internet generally seems to think video games good, AI bad.
Thanks for providing an example
So sorry for criticizing AI for very serious problems that will affect me in my lifetime along with everyone I care about. What a piece of shit I am, please forgive me! AI is totally great and has no problems at all!
That’s not what the post is about? How do you know I don’t agree with you? This post is about people, not AI.
AI only exacerbates an existing problem with tech; AI datacenters pollute and consume because datacenters pollute and consume
a lot of things many people do online, including watching videos or playing online games, are super polluting. yet no one talks about this
you don’t care about the environment, you care about AI
Wildly presumptive and incorrect statement about me, but you are right about data centers.
On that note, it’s worth pointing out that some fediverse instances are powered by renewables! It’s small compared to the Internet at large, but it’s a start.
Yesterday I saw a guy attacked on fuck_ai because he wasn’t extreme enough with his anti ai attitude.
I commented to him, only said I thought that his comment was valid and got promptly deleted.
Is this the new sub tweeting? Whining in a shitpost sub about how you got modded for continuing to support a logical fallacy after the mod said knock it off?
It was not a logical fallacy to begin with and I only had one comment and it was only to the guy who was attacked, not to anyone else.
What do you care so much where I talk about how obnoxious fuck_ai has become? It’s a stupid cult, that doesn’t want any dissenting opinions and people are attacked for not being extreme enough. A sewer.
Yeah, the church of anti-AI is loud, obnoxious, and obstinate.
[slopping intensifies]
People hyping “AI” are the ones that seem like cultists to me. It’s not even artificial intelligence, they’re misusing the term to make money. They rebadged LLM.
There are extremist on both sides. But at least the anti-AI group has environmental responsibility on their side.
Environmental responsibility? That’s the only real argument they have and even that is on shaky ground.
Ahh yes, not the literal theft of billions of peoples’ work. Not prematurely replacing jobs with machines. Those are all totally cool things LLMs are doing!
… You and your type are fucking clowns.
I mean, I don’t believe copyright should even exist. But if that’s true, then companies likewise need to release all their models freely to the public, which they won’t.
“Copyright for me, not for thee” seems to be the mantra.
See! Immediate attack on me. You don’t know anything about be and what I believe.
I beg to differ. Anti ai is way bigger on Lemmy than pro. You can see this even by the likes.
Second part is about semantics of ai. We use the term AI because that kind of stuck. Everybody uses the term. It makes no sense to every time rage about what it means specifically, especially since most people do fairly understand what it is.
Clearly they do not know what it is when they say, “LLMs and video game AI are the same thing!” No. No they aren’t. At all. In basically every case, they are wholly different.
No idea what you are talking about. The largest majority cals LLMs artificial intelligence. Because lnguistically, LLM is simply a subtyp of AI.
In public discourse and marketing, “AI” has become a blanket term for anything that learns and writes like a human, and LLMs fit the bill. So as a linguistic shortcut, when LLMs got popular, people replaced that specific kind of AI with just “AI. By definition, an LLM is a kind of AI, a specialized system trained on massive text to generate language, making it a clear hyponym of AI. That relationship justifies calling LLMs simply AI.
There is also because of generic reference: It’s easier to say “I used AI” than to specify “I prompted a 175B‑parameter transformer model.”
I sorry dude, but these are jusy linguistic mechanism at play. You can shout and complain so you want, it’s AI. It’s AI. Get over it, find a different hill to die on.
Yes, keep using language that implies amuch greater ability than it has. Keep using marketing terms that these corporations want you to use. Yes, keep simping for the rich people trying to make employees obsolete. They definitely won’t replace you as soon as “AI” is no longer a misnomer!
Your ignorance only makes you pathetic.
I have never seen anyone other than tech bros hype AI. Quite the opposite, I only see people raging on AI.
Gee do you think maybe there’s some good fuckin reasons for that
I guess I should make some sort of clever comment about a mirror here but it looks like I’ve run out of shits to give. Good chat!
Me too. Especially here in Lemmy. Definitely way more people rage about it. Rarely I see people being obnoxious by promoting it.
You must only be reading web forums like Lemmy/Reddit. I think society as a whole is very excited by the idea of AI.
Companies everywhere have been racing to be the first to add AI to their products, for instance. Not just tech bro companies either. Everybody.
Edit: so many downvotes and no comments. I see AI hype everywhere, it’s a fact. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, just that it isn’t limited to tech bros.
Companies hopping on a fad bandwagon doesn’t mean that the public in general wants it.
Yes, what it actually signifies is that markets are mostly run by supply side economics. In other words, the typical product creation story is that companies produce products and then try to shove them down everyone’s throats.
It’s hard to tell. I get on Lemmy/reddit and see all kinds of anti AI messages. But I look at what’s happening on things like TikTok and instagram, and people don’t seem to care. They like and share all the AI slop. Knowing it is AI slop.
The comment I was responding to was saying it is only tech bros hyping AI. I think that’s just not true. There’s a wide range of people hyping AI. Companies, governments, schools (when used the right way and not just cheating), etc…
As for public in general, I think most people just don’t care. They see the benefits of AI and don’t think about the negatives, so they just embrace it.
deleted by creator
You got me wondering, and it seems like opinion is mixed among US adults
It seems to hold true internationally too
Saying society overall is excited might have been an overreach, but to say only tech bros are hyping this is far from reality. I think there’s plenty of people that are excited about AI. And I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing. More than 32% of people should be concerned about AI.
I couldn’t give a fuck less if you want to amuse yourself with scuffed images of anime girls with three tits and lobster claws. Knock yourself out.
But if you think people are going to sit politely while institutions inflict these bullshit techbro fidget spinners unto us at the cost of our humanity and the planet then you’ve lost the plot.
While you are correct that AI is a horrible source of greenhouse gas due to its insatiable need for power, I wouldn’t call the people using it the make pictures “too lazy to learn Photoshop”. Being able to draw is a talent not everyone has and it’s kind of amazing to be able to make a picture you see in your mind without having the innate talent to do so. That being said, the people who have the talent who’s art has been used to train these AI systems should be broadly compensated for their work being used in the AI models.
I despise whenever someone talks like this about drawing. Everyone can draw. Nobody was born being able to make masterpieces from day one. It’s not some mystical arte that only those with the Chosen One gene can do. It all comes down to a willingness to try and to learn. That’s it. Using “talent” to bar yourself from doing so is only doing yourself a disservice. Even drawing silly little stick men is still practice, and I can attest to that from both first and second-hand experience. Just pick up a pencil, or boot up paint on a computer (but please, at least download paint.net or something), and you’ll find that you can indeed draw, you just have to do it enough to gain confidence. It’s like walking, or driving a car. I don’t see anyone saying that some people have innate driving talent and some don’t.
That’s absolute bullshit. I spent years trying to get good at drawing. I bought lots of books on how to draw and was never able to make anything that didn’t look like it was made by a 5 year old. I even learned Photoshop and Illustrator cause I thought that those would be a gateway for me to get better. Spoilers, it didn’t.
So go fuck yourself with your “everyone can draw” horseshit argument. No, not everyone can draw. And it doesn’t just take “working hard at it till you’re good”. You have to have talent. I fucking don’t, as well as lots of others out there.
And I said in my comment as well as many other places, these AI drawing sites need to compensate the people who’s talent they, at this point in time, have stolen. Just because I think the technology has purpose doesn’t mean I don’t think that there are problems with it.
You know, Ben Shapiro is a failed hollywood screenwriter. Maybe you can jump on Fox News and become a panelist complaining that M&Ms can’t wear sexy shoes anymore or something, too.
Hence why I didn’t say people who don’t do it are lazy. Laziness is an inherently capitalist ideal, saying that those who aren’t constantly working are somehow lesser. However, those who don’t at least try tend to quote the idea of a “lack of talent”, which is simply not true or helpful. Everyone is able to draw, though some may need some help in doing so. It’s part of being alive.
Equating someone lacking talent for something with literally being disabled is a pretty stupid take.
Art can be made out of literally anything. Trash, pieces of fabric, some chalk on a sidewalk, spray cans, arrangement of random objects, sea shells, etc. People will still love to look at shitty sketches and cute chibis and eagerly repost that art. Your medium doesn’t have to be just paper and pencil, nor just an expensive digital screen and a paid paint program, but even then digital can be free. Kritia, MS Paint, Sketchbook, IbisPaint, Fossify Paint, and many more are free and easy to download on Android. Procreate is cheap and loved by many. There are people doing this shit on their phone with their finger and a lot of determination.
None of these artists started out making masterpieces, they had to take the time to get to where they are and learn. Thousands of free tutorials are online, on both YT and other social media platforms, for any kind of art medium. Years of work and practicing every day. Even for those who are making masterpieces now, they take probably days or weeks to finish off a major project, they can’t just pump that shit out.
If you can’t draw or photoshop images well, that’s fine, as not everyone is able to do that skill. I want to learn to draw, but I can recognize that I probably don’t have to time right now in my life to do that, nor will I likely be able to reach the level I dream of, and I accept that. But the moment you decide to get mad at the people opposing AI art and using AI to Photoshop, or you yourself ever use AI to do such acts, then I will gladly call you a lazy bastard. You can’t have your cake without the effort that others put in to do it, and if you’re doing it for commercial purposes, you should be dragged through the streets.
Art is art because a human put their thoughts and feelings behind it. It causes discussion, whether good, bad, happy, angry, etc. AI art is only amazing on the surface, “wow, we have the tech to do this” and then it stops being amazing. Either way am artist/digital designer or don’t make whatever it is you wanted. Using AI to make art is embarrassing.
While we’re discussing what is and isn’t art, I just want to also chime in and point out that art can also be literature, or music, or dance.
Such as LLMs.
You don’t think there’s any thought put into AI art by the creators?
Art is art, it doesn’t matter what tool or medium was used, what matters is it reflects the artists intention or vision.
I think it is vanishingly small, if present at all. Like watching somebody artistically pick which youtube video to watch while eating.
Well, is it really your vision or intention if it pulled from the efforts and thoughts of a million others to generate your picture?
Every art is pulled from the efforts and thoughts of million others.
Star Wars is pulled from Dune, which on itself was based upon Middle Eastern History and Religions.
Everything is build on the shoulders of giants.
Ideas pulled only from the efforts and thoughts of a million others is typically called plagiarism.
Based. Nothing triggers redditors and chuds alike than recognizing the value in all art.
Based. Nothing triggers redditors and chuds alike than recognizing the value in all art.
^ This matches my intentions and vision completely, so it’s mine now.
yeah honestly I don’t really care much for AI art and I think the vast majority of it looks kind of creepy in the uncanny valley sense but at least I have the self-awareness to recognize that it is a personal preference. These anti-ai bros seem to have no distinction between “I don’t like <thing>” and “<thing> is unethical” on top of being just generally insufferable pricks so I try to avoid them as much as possible.
I am one of those people.
<thing> is unethical because it is an anti-social technology.
I was fine with cleverbot 10 or 15 years ago, but that was when the human mimicry was cute and funny, and didn’t threaten to kill all human-to-human contact online by smothering it to death.