Any technology can be good or bad depending on how it's used.
The way corporations are shoving AI in anywhere they can, and stealing peoples content to train them etc. is bad.
So is the privacy concerns.
But LLMs aren't necessarily bad, and can be good depending on how they are built and used.
Maybe that’s true. LLMs are fancy text prediction gadgets utilizing linear algebra and lambda calculus, whose facility with language creates the illusion of intelligence (which is one thing that LLMs are good at). But I think a lot of the VCs and execs in tech have lost sight of that fact.
I mean, for basic language tasks they’re pretty good! They can summarize a webpage, or go through all my emails and tell me how many Daves I know, or write a summary of the appointments on next week’s calendar. Useful things.
But forcing them to do things they’re not good at makes them look half-baked. They’re not ready to be customer service agents, they’re not ready to accurately answer questions in specialist domains, they’re not ready to book your flights, or do your budgeting, or your grocery shopping, and maybe they’ll be brilliant someday – but so many companies are pushing them right now regardless, and it makes them look bad and stupid.
Ramp up the research. Slow down the deployment. (And maybe deal with the copyright and energy consumption issues, don’t burn the planet down for LLMs.)
But I don't see the energy issue as a real issue. I feel that is just the AI = Bad mentality looking for reasons to hate AI
If you compare it to other things, it's a drop in the bucket
- 1 kg Beef = 60kg CO2 - source
- 1000km Return flight = 314kg CO2 - source
- 1 Bitcoin transaction = 645kg of CO2 - source
- 1000 AI prompts = 3kg of CO2 - source including training
Before I probably get attacked for these valid points, I just want to say I'm not Pro-AI (look at my history)
There are plenty of valid reasons to be Anti-AI like Privacy, Copyright and many more, but the argument for the environment is a very weak one when you compare it to other things we aren't as upset about like flying.
Whataboutism is not a very compelling argument. The existence of worse polluters does not pardon LLMs contributions any more than the existence of the crime of grand theft makes shoplifting a legal activity. Considering the existential threat of global climate change, it is the responsibility of every industry to avoid damage to the environment, however small their “drop in the bucket” is, as at a basic economic level a business on an extinct planet can no longer create value.
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social 1 month ago
Any technology can be good or bad depending on how it's used.
The way corporations are shoving AI in anywhere they can, and stealing peoples content to train them etc. is bad.
So is the privacy concerns.
But LLMs aren't necessarily bad, and can be good depending on how they are built and used.
sundray@lemmus.org 1 month ago
Maybe that’s true. LLMs are fancy text prediction gadgets utilizing linear algebra and lambda calculus, whose facility with language creates the illusion of intelligence (which is one thing that LLMs are good at). But I think a lot of the VCs and execs in tech have lost sight of that fact.
I mean, for basic language tasks they’re pretty good! They can summarize a webpage, or go through all my emails and tell me how many Daves I know, or write a summary of the appointments on next week’s calendar. Useful things.
But forcing them to do things they’re not good at makes them look half-baked. They’re not ready to be customer service agents, they’re not ready to accurately answer questions in specialist domains, they’re not ready to book your flights, or do your budgeting, or your grocery shopping, and maybe they’ll be brilliant someday – but so many companies are pushing them right now regardless, and it makes them look bad and stupid.
Ramp up the research. Slow down the deployment. (And maybe deal with the copyright and energy consumption issues, don’t burn the planet down for LLMs.)
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social 1 month ago
I might get crucified for saying this on Lemmy
But I don't see the energy issue as a real issue. I feel that is just the AI = Bad mentality looking for reasons to hate AI
If you compare it to other things, it's a drop in the bucket
- 1 kg Beef = 60kg CO2 - source
- 1000km Return flight = 314kg CO2 - source
- 1 Bitcoin transaction = 645kg of CO2 - source
- 1000 AI prompts = 3kg of CO2 - source including training
Before I probably get attacked for these valid points, I just want to say I'm not Pro-AI (look at my history)
There are plenty of valid reasons to be Anti-AI like Privacy, Copyright and many more, but the argument for the environment is a very weak one when you compare it to other things we aren't as upset about like flying.
sundray@lemmus.org 1 month ago
Whataboutism is not a very compelling argument. The existence of worse polluters does not pardon LLMs contributions any more than the existence of the crime of grand theft makes shoplifting a legal activity. Considering the existential threat of global climate change, it is the responsibility of every industry to avoid damage to the environment, however small their “drop in the bucket” is, as at a basic economic level a business on an extinct planet can no longer create value.