I actually closed by Github account because I don't want to support AI or have my code trained on AI. Now I'm extra happy I shut it down.
What are your arguments for this?
2. AI is too dangerous. Whatever innovations used for benign applications will be eventually used for more dangerous applications such as advanced genetic engineering and the military.
3. AI uses too much energy. It's disrespectful to the resources that we have.
4. AI is an apex technology amongst technologies designed to further enrich the elite and strengthen the power structure.
5. AI will also be used to completely replace workers at a speed much faster than other automations and I don't agree with that. The new jobs that have been created are demeaning such as "AI Prompt Engineer".
6. AI is one step closer to technology creating autonomous technology, and that's a bad thing.
Society needs to slow down and find alternative, more sustainable solutions. AI is aligned with short-term economic efficiency and that is detrimental.
7. This idea of "AI" and how it is expected to be used is detrimental to human intellectual development, particularly for junior generations, and the presumption that AI will solve everything is what actually may bring us closer to the world of Idiocracy.
This one I somewhat agree with. Ideally these technologies are owned by nobody.
Though it does give me hope when I see Facebook of all companies leading the charge in regards to open sourcing AI. The fact that their business model incentivizes them to do this, is good (lucky) for everyone, whatever your other opinions of the company are.
I am currently having a ride with chatgpt allowing me to write applications at 3 times the speed compared to before (where before may be "never" for some technologies) and I am happy for everyone contributing to this.
But all your points are well grounded, I will have to figure out a way to think about them, while keeping my day job.
So to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not just another dude who has hitched their financial wagon to this current AI slopfest, I just retried a question about writing OSSEC rules and the response, while convincing looking, was completely wrong. Again.
There’s a lot that engineers can due that are well beyond the limits of LLMs. If you really want to keep your day job, I would really commit yourself to that gap when you can!
I would put that phrase the other way around.
The time freed here gives me more time to spend on what actually brings value.
My primary job is not to write applications.
And if it was, I would not include "the process of editing lines of code" in my job description.
I am not afraid to be fired, but at the same time there is no discussion about the ethics of using AI and whether ethics is a good reason not to in, my workplace.
The AI proponents that support this have no serious solution to the mass displacement of jobs thanks to AI. They actually don't mention any alternative solutions and instead scream about nonsense such as UBI which has never worked at a large sustainable scale.
> Society needs to slow down and find alternative, more sustainable solutions. AI is aligned with short-term economic efficiency and that is detrimental.
I don't think they can come up with sensible alternatives or any sustainable solutions to the jobs displaced as there is no alternative.
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
Granted, most of us are not choosing this.
That's a new thing in the world, ordinary people investing in their savings, 401k, retirement, mortgages, index-linked accounts. Not many hundreds of years old, but people advise it as if it's as solid as the mountains. And work for 50 years watching the numbers go up for the carrot of freedom at the end.
I agree with you that it can also be abused to make the existing state of affairs even worse. But if we resist technical progress on this basis, we'll never get better, either.
What human instincts do you have in mind, and how are they incompatible with AI?
- AI output is taken as an ultimate source of truth despite frequently, and dangerously, getting details wrong. Fact-checking is abdicated as a personal responsibly while simultaneously marketing and designing products to people who are weak at or are otherwise indifferent about critical thinking. (This is similar to social media products telling its users to "consume responsibly" while designing them to be as addictive as possible.)
- AI is expensive. Microsoft, Google and Meta are the only companies that can afford to train. I don't feel comfortable with allowing these companies to be the ultimate arbiter of truth behind the scenes.
I belong to an internet community whose artists make for a third of its population – they are mostly hostile to generative art and never gave their consent for their art to be plagiarized, yet their artstyle end up in Civitai and their content shows up on haveibeentrained.com.
Personally, my hostility towards generative art would stop if training was opt-in, and I would use GitHub again if it, AT LEAST, allowed members to opt-OUT.
Technical: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23038520 with the tl;dr of "patches over email is king, if you want fancy web stuff go elsewhere"
Administrative: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33403780