• wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Most people have no issue with what we were calling AI before the LLM fad hellscape we’re currently in.

    No one sane is going to object to using machine learning to optimize the performance of an antenna, or crash safety of a car frame. People aren’t against the existence of AI opponents in video games. No one was ranting about fuzzy search algorithms, or neural nets on their own. Beyond that, data science has been a thing for ages with no contreversy.

    The issue is generative AI and how it is being used. The best case use scenarios are just supplanting tech that already exists at higher cost and delivering worse results. The worst case use scenarios are attempting to cannibalize multiple creative pursuits to remove the need for humans and maximize profits.

    • Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, that’s what I’ve meant: the issue with generative ai is how it is being used, another issue is the lack of compensation to stolen training data. But these are human / capitalist set of incentives problems.

      As a developer it helpd me countless of times, by helping me understand legacy code, or new concepts, in a chatty way, by helping me write corporate friendly formal emails. I use it to recommend and discover music or just mindlessly chatting with it about nothing. The technology is genuinely useful. (I do click stack overflow and other sites links when it provides, and turned off my ad blocker for some sites)