Peanutbjelly

again, the issue isn't the technology, but the system that forces every technological development into functioning "in the name of increased profits for a tiny few."

that has been an issue for the fifty years prior to LLMs, and will continue to be the main issue after.

removing LLMs or other AI will not fix the issue. why is it constantly framed as if it would?

we should be demanding the system adjust for the productivity increases we've already seen, as well to what we expect in the near future. the system should make every advancement a boon for the general populace, not the obscenely wealthy few.

even the fears of propaganda. the wealthy can already afford to manipulate public discourse beyond the general public's ability to keep up. the bigger issue is in plain sight, but is still being largely ignored for the slant that "AI is the problem."

The wording of every single article has such an anti AI slant, and I feel the propaganda really working this past half year. Still nobody cares about advertising companies, but LLMs are the devil.

Existing datasets still exist. The bigger focus is in crossing modalities and refining content.

Why is the negative focus always on the tech and not the political system that actually makes it a possible negative for people?

I swear, most of the people with heavy opinions don't even know half of how the machines work or what they are doing.

some subreddits were basically bots posting new topical research papers, which i appreciated.

Exactly what I keep saying when people start blaming the tools being used for automation. Productivity is up and up and up, but none of that has been given back to the workers in the past fifty years. If I try to find dialogue on that issue, I run into a mountain of blatant propaganda defending the continued robbery of the middle and lower classes.

TY. i need to stop commenting with phone swipe keyboard.

We already know we aren't allowed to use someone's likeness without permission. The issue is companies like Disney who will end up legally owning all of the likenesses. Especially if we continue to beef up copyright, they will end up owning likeness to all artistic styles. Grimes did it right with the voice tech, but even that doesn't fix the real issue.

We need to fix the system we live in that is so terrible that it makes amazing new technology seem like a negative to the larger populace. We could destroy the loom to keep people employed, but that doesn't actually help anyone. It's no coincidence that we have record profits at the same time as unreasonable price hikes. That people are overworked and struggling after fifty years of unimaginable productivity growth.

There's a mountain of propaganda defending the rich as well. If I try to search for views critical of the ones that plundered the entire world, I get bombarded with excuses and defenses for indefensible behaviors. Why are people freaking out about the tech reaching Utopian levels when the real issue is keeping the thieves from stealing every gain we have as a society?

No note of who is specifically responsible? Politician or company? Even decades down the line, there should be repercussions for such avoidable tragedies. People shouldn't get away with such obviously terrible acts and environmental destruction when it's just normal people who suffer repercussions and pay for it. Somebody walks away with a lot of money whenever they decide to destroy the environment instead of safely dispose of dangerous waste. I don't see any aspect of that addressed in the article.

i get that. i think there's a highly abstracted, or high-dimensional complication to discussing social issues (or anything else) which has never been properly addressed. people are bad at visualizing the scale of variation of experiences and interpretations that exist. even communicating basic information is difficult, with vastly varying interpretation of words/phrases, to differences in local social ecosystems/experienced environments. it is enough to make properly conveying or interpreting information increasingly difficult with the scale and diversity of environments that exist. now that we're all connected, it's a lot all at once.

i often end up overly defensive as well due to a history of rather aggressive dismissal or denial of some notable traumas in my life. to the degree of being harassed and insulted in a way i think most would have difficulty not internalizing. my main issue is that people generally suck at communicating and understanding each-other, and the fact that we can't even communicate about that without being polarized and shut down.

i think fixing that would end better for everyone, regardless of personal history.

That's largely what these specialists are talking about. People emphasising the existential apocalypse scenarios when there are more pressing matters. I think purpose of the tools in mind should be more of a concern than the training data as well in many cases. People keep freaking out about LLMs and art models while still ignoring the plague of models built specifically to manipulate and predict subconscious habits and activities of individuals. Models built specifically to recreate the concept of a unique individual and their likeness for financial reason should also be regulated in new unique ways. People shouldn't be able to be bought wholesale, but to sell their likeness as a subscription with rights to withdraw from future production, etc.

I think the ways we think about a lot of things have to change based around the type of society we want. I vote getting away from a system that lets a few own everything until people no longer have the right to live.

i mean, my whole concern wouldn't be a concern if responses were like oneofthemladygoats even half of the time the issue was broached. this is the legitimate most accepting or positive response i've had to my concerns that i've ever experienced. online or in person.

i would say i've not stated any opinions that should even be controversial. asking purely for the recognition of bad actors and the harm they might bring, rather than refusal to address or accept anything that can imply that bad actors even can exist around the community.

my issue has never been people disagreeing with my points on the topic, but the adamant refusal to even recognize that certain situations exist, and likely contribute to the personal experience of people who end up feeling hopeless or angry. i think this feeds into situations like op's article when it occurs to less reasonable or more violent individuals. maybe if someone recognized their issues and tried to understand their perspective, they could have been derailed from whatever echo-chamber they may have been trapped in. this would also help combat the intentionally polarizing articles made to ensure cohesion is never found, because anger gets more clicks. remembering that experience and personal truths exist on different societal and cultural scales. we're interacting from a very messy starting point.

perhaps we are just going in circles, but i hope to see more positive change in the future. i do think dialogue in some corners have become less aggressive, and this thread has been a good example. if some of the more emotionally unstable people have the ability to communicate their grievances and understand the perspectives they are unaligned with, maybe we can avoid more of these trends. recognizing and stopping the support for bad actors in the community might just help.

i'll meditate on this, but i implore the same in your direction.

the point was that i think my statement provided should be reasonable in use regardless of frequency of its relevance to your perception of what is the norm. i state this generally due to my opinions being shut down for not being another person's personal experience.

as i've stated, my perspective has been potently reinforced over the course of the whole of my life, regardless of whether your personal experience matches. i think arguing past that is equally arguing from personal experience on any side, but arguing that i cannot make my concerns known or relevant is unreasonable to me.

i also personally believe the denial and ignorance of this topic is responsible for the growing of environments that inevitably leads to bad actors being more encouraged and aggressive in their actions and opinions. that "fire hose" is a lot larger than it should be, because there is denial that ANY bad actors exist within the space on the other side. i've also personally been aggrieved by the 'water pouring' from the "left." to remove myself from that analogy, and make a blatant statement. the experiences that i've had on the side of the political spectrum that i consider myself to be on has allowed itself to become inclusive of very harmful and evil actors that have affected me personally, as well as others i personally know. i've also seen bad actors (or ignorant moderates) on the other side of the spectrum be enflamed or more radical by this.

both the social issues that are ignored due to this issue, as well as the pushback from any aggrieved parties are extremely relevant to the topic of this thread.

i'm tired of being dismissed as if my opinion is wrong or irrelevant just because certain people hate the concept it might be relevant to, and don't want it taking the "energy" away from the "important issues." i consider that statement as intentionally attempting to dismiss a relevant point purely to avoid possibly acknowledging the topic it is built around, even at the cost of making things worse for everyone involved.

that's fine if you disagree on the importance of the issues i'm presenting, but i believe they are important and disagree with you that they aren't.

also a pan individual : D

i agree with everything i've read here. very well put. i especially agree about the bad actors being antithetical to left wing and to being progressive as a concept. i hope to see them criticized as such more in the future.