mastodon.world is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Generic Mastodon server for anyone to use.

Server stats:

12K
active users


Edit: went back and found my friend that originated the quote from Facebook.

facebook.com/share/p/sQGLoN9wu

@jeffowski AI is just another tool to make users lazier

@dogpile @jeffowski it has enormous potential to democratize education through #onelaptoperchild and similar initiatives.

@ariaflame @dogpile @jeffowski I said potential, Aria. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

@nicholas_saunders @dogpile @jeffowski LLMs at the moment don't give accurate information. But sure, tell me that I can give up my job and give it over to machines which do not give accurate information.

@ariaflame @dogpile @jeffowski bit of a strawman there, isn't it? It's just a tool like any other. As you yourself said, it's not capable of thought. Writing some boilerplate? Great.

Not understanding the hate.

Because it's an advancement. Terribly inefficient and overblown, but with great potential and some present utility.

@nicholas_saunders @dogpile @jeffowski So it's good at doing bad writing? How is that useful?

@ariaflame @dogpile @jeffowski

It's rather remarkable, but it's also being used to write code. It collates data well, and acts as a frontend for Wikipedia.

It has utility. Of course it's hyped up. And?

@nicholas_saunders @dogpile @jeffowski From what I've heard not great code. What data does it collate?

@ariaflame @nicholas_saunders @dogpile @jeffowski
The code is good enough - and it's very good at summarizing bad documentation.

It doesn't need to be perfect to be useful else humans would also be useless.

@atzanteol @ariaflame @nicholas_saunders @dogpile - I have a very good friend that is an incredibly smart guy but was deprived of a quality education. His speech is crude and he has trouble making comprehensible sentences for his social media posts. AI as an assistant to an actual user is different than simply outsourcing entire jobs away from actual artists. I don’t believe AI is dangerous in the sense that it can destroy humans CONT ->

@atzanteol @ariaflame @nicholas_saunders @dogpile — the “Terminator/Skynet” future is not what I’m afraid of. as assistants paired with a human can do superhuman things and I think it may even be the next step in our evolution. With that said, the machine learning models used to create papers/articles and to create images and video are not paired with a human. As such, the results can only be within the data set it has been fed-> CONT

@atzanteol @ariaflame @nicholas_saunders @dogpile - this sort of work does not expand the dataset at all. It is all derivative. Outside of the ethics of using the art of other artists to train your machine learning model, it cannot deviate and create something completely new. We have ethical use of as a tool to enhance a human and and the inethical use of creating derivative works in styles stolen from real human artists.

@atzanteol @ariaflame @nicholas_saunders @dogpile - an artist using to create more art trained on the artist’s past work for the benefit of the artist is something I can get behind. Using to circumvent the artist using a service trained on their art and the art of thousands of other artists for the benefit of a tech company and the end customer (again, not the artist(s)) is inethical and does not expand the dataset.

@jeffowski @atzanteol @ariaflame @dogpile

Fuck, Jeff, tell us what you really think.

But, yeh, hunna percent, as they say now. Music, I think, is the most immediately exploitable. The long term effect being that composing becomes a lost art.

But that risk is across the board. Why learn to draw when ai will do that for you?

@nicholas_saunders @jeffowski @ariaflame @dogpile

Remember when everyone stopped learning math because of calculators?

@atzanteol @nicholas_saunders @jeffowski @ariaflame @dogpile They might not have stopped “learning math” but they definitely declined in their ability to do basic arithmetic calculations

@peterbutler @atzanteol @jeffowski @ariaflame @dogpile

Yeah, I think this is different in degree and quality. Because it plagiarizes so well it can only and inexorably lead to much of our culture becoming a lost art.

@nicholas_saunders @peterbutler @atzanteol @ariaflame @dogpile - It cannot get out of the box the data set makes. Anything the AI can generate will be within that box (data outline). Humans still need to create new things (data) that is outside of the current data set, to expand what AI can do. The real issue, and the root of the concise Original Post above, is that as soon as an artist makes something new, it can instantly be stolen, even before the artist can make a penny off of it.-> CONT

Church of Jeff

@nicholas_saunders @peterbutler @atzanteol @ariaflame @dogpile -- If that is the paradigm we are working with, then there is absolutely NO incentive to create new art. This will lead to artistic and cultural stagnation, IMO.
Unless we make special art specifically forbidden from being photographed or digitized in any way that is profitable, can instantly steal it and it is instantly not special.
This has special implications.
->CONT

@nicholas_saunders @peterbutler @atzanteol @ariaflame @dogpile - This special art would be limited to very specific artists for a very specific clientele that have the power and money to literally restrict the ACCESS to the art to keep it special. We will soon see a world were any new art will strictly be for the ultra-wealthy.
We will move back to 17th century levels of wealth inequality and masses of impoverished poor that return to serfdom to fill their bellies.