I don’t use it because I have no trust in it.
Sounds like you are not eating enough small rocks a day. You should eat 1 small rock a day.
Wtf this is the weirdest thing to read while taking a shit in the morning
This was an actual response that Google’s stupid Gemini LLM really gave somebody. The notion was lifted from a satirical Onion article which the LLM regurgitated as if it was an established fact.
We need to poison the models with more satire on the Internet.
Yup, satire is lost on the dumb and LLMs have no intelligence.
also because it’s shit, if my memory serves me, I have successfully used AI for a productive task 1 time out of 7 attempts so far… it saved me 5 minutes
That is part of the trust thing. I spent more time fixing the word salad it spat out than it would have taken to write the document.
Yes, hand in hand…
Anecdotal of course, but every person I know who claims AI is a huge productivity booster simply trust it blindly.
I can’t even get “Copilot” to return a proper answer from its own meeting transcript… just yesterday there was some confusion about an IP address we exchanged in a past meeting… I asked Copilot to check the transcript and give me the IP of the vendor’s server (which I pointed by name of system and who spoke it in the meeting) and it gave me the IP of MY server, functionally the complete opposite of what I was asking but with full confidence in its answer
“AI vegans”
ffs, just publish an article with a single clownemoji for the same effect.
The big corporations desperately want AI to be popular because they’ve thrown literally insane amounts of money at it and still don’t know how to monetize it.
There’s going to be a huge push to make it seem like everyone loves it and it’s weird not to use it constantly
It’s going to go horribly and come off like that “fellow kids” meme, exactly like this headline
still don’t know how to monetize it.
They do know how to monetize it. API access generated $1Billion in 2023. There’s also huge R&D potential in fields like genetic research and medicine.
Profitability is another question though. Likely we’re waiting for advances in cold fusion or late stage renewable development for energy costs to go down enough.
People pay for the “premium” because they believe the makers who said it can increase their profitability and make them money.
My employer keeps trying to shove it down our throats too.
They’re desperate to find anyway to make it reduce work, be cause they’ve already paid for it under the assumption it would let them cut staffing
Now they’re finding out they got swindled, do you think they’ll re-up on AI?
The AI companies offloaded how to monetize it to consumers and scared them into being left behind unless they discovered how to use it.
It’s a short term bubble.
AI having to wait on cold fusion for profitability is one of the funnier concepts I’ve heard today, thank you.
I know, I regularly sleep with one of the researchers involved with several similar pojects (aren’t I cool). Fascinating stuff though! Very much not comparable to commercial LLMs, though.
They do know how to monetize it. API access generated $1Billion in 2023.
And all that $1B revenue cost them was a $5B loss! https://www.wheresyoured.at/howmuchmoney/
Yes my second paragraph alleged as much. Not that you read that far of course.
Ironically he could have asked AI to summarize it.
Thank you.
As much as I hate AI… I think I hate the people who hate AI more lol
AI in this form has been used for like 15 years, to generate trillions of dollars worth of value. I think you’re just talking specifically about ChatGPT and consumer-facing LLMs.
AI in this form has been used for like 15 years, to generate trillions of dollars worth of value
Suuuuuuuuuuure it has…
He’s probablly talking about shareholder “value”, AKA inflated stock prices, rather than actual value.
lol ok. I’ve literally done it. Please, go enlighten yourself on google.
“Enlighten yourself” you mean make your argument for you?
You do you bb. Keep believing whatever makes you feel best.
Sounds kinda like you’ve got nothing and you know it
I’m already seeing a surge of AI simp trolls on Lemmy in the last few days.
Ironically enough they’re the same trolls as the vegan drama.
They don’t care about the topic, they just want to troll and they’ve been up/device banned from all the major social media, so they’ll always be here
MBA dweebs running VC firms wanna desperately replace people with AI for short term profits.
This is it.
A good example were those Apple AI ads. So cringe. Google’s ads aren’t much better but at least Gemini works.
I can only imagine someone came up with AI vegan after they decided to eat steak that evening while thinking they’re the ones who are pressed by vegans…
If we go this route, there is also from for AI Crossfitters
Did anyone let them know that reproduction harms the environment?
I selective use AI for low risk applications.
I can use it to reskin a picture to a water painting or whatever for the purpose of using it as an icon in a smart home app or similar.
i also use it to clean audio for memes with friends.
At the moment its not reliable to solve actual problems. I simply don’t use to for those purposes because it sucks.
Abstaining from a thing does not make one a vegan. That’s not how any of this works.
It’s like how they put the word gate after something to say that it is a scandal involving the former word.
Somesort of political scandal involving road maintenance? Oh yes well that’s roadgate then. Even though the Watergate scandal was in fact it scandal in the watergate hotel, rather than a scandal about water.
Someday we’ll have Gate gate, or maybe even another scandal at the Watergate complex, so Watergate gate.
I can’t wait!
But it makes people come off as extremely annoying. So that’s working.
I mean, abstaining from animal products makes someone a vegan, right? If you abstain from AI products then it would follow that you’re an “AI vegan”.
It follows, but it is also feels like click bait.
A definition of vegan is:
A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.
There is an environmental parallel, and it made me read the article to see what they were on about – so I guess it worked.
To be clear, I am very pro environment (I live in it); I just feel like this is crossing the streams of related, but completely different movements, isn’t particularly helpful.
Abstaining from animal products is just vegetarian. Veganism requires an extremely strict adherence to a very specific set of rules concerning animals.
Vegetarians can eat cheese, which is an animal product.
I’m sex vegan. Cry about it virgins
I’m a sex vegetarian gotta be a bit open
I’m a sex pescatarian. I will not be answering questions.
Sex flexitarian is where it’s at
No animals harmed during sex…hmm
Disagreed. I am an animal.
“Vegan sex” is actually a different thing. It’s penetration but you stop before you cum.
If the human you’re fucking consented, then consuming their fluids is vegan. Hell if they consent, eating them would be vegan too.
Animals do not consent to having fluids extracted or their lives taken and flesh consumed. Animal agriculture keeps animals in filthy, torturous conditions too, which no animal would ever consent to either.
I had a fish that died by suicide. We didn’t eat it, but arguably
It was kept in captivity by you though, which is not it’s natural habitat so any choices it made were, arguably, under duress.
If you lived by a creek and regularly recognised a fish swimming by, and one day this fish killed itself in front of you- you still shouldn’t eat it as fish contain a lot of parasites and there’s very likely also something toxic in the water causing the fish to harm itself this way.
But yeah, sure, hypothetically: if for a year or so you knew a wild fish that lived in an unpolluted and ecologically healthy body of water, and one day this fish chose to kill itself in front of you. You could, if you really wanted to eat a suicidal fish, eat the fish and say it was vegan because the only harm that came to the fish was through the un-coerced choices of said suicidal fish.
No mayo in the bedroom? Why even bother.
Vegan aioli just doesn’t cut it
Awe so the article author has a vendetta against vegans got it.
The irony of environmental activists using the word “veganism” while not being vegan 😒 (being vegan is one of the most significant reduction to greenhouse emissions that is within your personal choice)
Eh. Factory farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases, particularly through methane released by large livestock herds.
But the industry is so saturated with subsidies and shielded from liabilities and exempted from taxes and so comically wasteful in its surplus production that there hasn’t been any material benefit to veganism as a social movement. You can take a moral position (and you should, eating meat is awful for a variety of reasons). But there’s no actual correlation between an increase in vegan eating habits and a decrease in agricultural emissions. All we ever get is more meat shipped abroad or thrown in the trash.
The real curb to agricultural production has been raw materials constraints - limits on arable land, potable water, and slaughterhouse workers - that have (directly or indirectly) emerged from a changed climate. Outside these limits, all we’ve really achieved is “Grapes of Wrath” style surplus destruction to keep retail prices up.
If a factory farm can produce another dead cow, it does, even if it can’t reliably bring the carcass to market. The profit margins are set so artificially high that they’d be fools not to do so. Only herd die-offs resulting from heat waves, water shortages, and a lack of below-market migrant labor seem to dissuade them from trying to expand.
thank you. no matter how many times I point out the inefficacy of consumer choices or how I word it, I end up with bad faith and fact-avoidant responses like you got.
Veganism is a philosophy, not a boycott.
20 years ago you could have said “Well, solar panels might be great for sustainability in theory, but the fossil fuel industry is so overwhelmingly powerful and solar panels so bad and expensive, it’s absolutely futile.”
Now, over 90% of added power plants are renewable, because there was at least some pressure to implement alternatives, and now they have matured enough to become economically viable on their own.
I think there are certain parallels to factory farming and plant-based alternatives + cultivated meat. We know that factory farming is very unsustainable, especially in terms of climate impact, resource use and zoonotic diseases (like bird flu and swine flu). These issues become ever more pressing as factory farming continues. We just won’t have a choice at some point but to switch to alternatives that are more sustainable, or everything goes to shit.
Creating demand for the alternatives funds their R&D and furthers their availability, which in turn leads to better products for lower prices, which makes further adoption much easier. Advancing the alternatives might have a much bigger impact than the mere reduction in meat consumption.
The more early adopters, the faster new technologies can advance. That’s true for every sustainable industry like solar energy, wind energy, battery storage, electric cars, and also meat alternatives.
Creating demand for the alternatives funds their R&D and furthers their availability, which in turn leads to better products for lower prices, which makes further adoption much easier.
there is no causal link between any of those events, and increased demand decrease availability.
I don’t really believe what economists claim, v but you don’t even seem to know what they say in the first place
increased demand decrease availability
In the short term. Over the mid and long terms, highly profitable demand can induce supply in a free market system.
Solar and Wind electricity are both great cases in point. Once they became more cost-efficient to build and operate than coal plants, the demand for coal plummeted while the demand for new green installations surged.
I don’t really believe what economists claim
I’m inclined to follow the data, at least at first glance. We’re entering a CO2 production peak, in large part thanks to the cost-spread between installing/operating new fossil fuel plants and their green peers.
There are other factors at play. I can’t get the mysterious explosion of the Nordstream II pipeline out of my head and what the consequences of climate change are of that. Then there’s the closing of the Suez trade and the collapse in development of Balkan Crude. But the incredibly cheap alternatives - largely pioneered and industrially propagated by the world’s largest socialist state - can’t be ignored as having a huge influence on consumption habits.
Can animal-free meat follow the same path? Idk, maybe. But given the way the US developers and investors had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a modern green grid, I suspect we’ll see meat alternatives take off abroad long before they become truly popular in the US.
So just the “Appeal to futility” logical fallacy? I’m convinced!
Every change starts somewhere. Yes, 0.001% of the population can be vegan and it most likely won’t save a single slaughterhouse animal. But 1%? That’s already significant enough to make at least some change, and 10%? That’s already setting market trends and modifying industries, 50%?
You get my point. You joining the current vegan population is significant! The vegan population is estimated to be 9% in india and mexico, 5% in Israel, 2% in the UK, 1.5% in the US, and estimated to be a total of 1%-3% of the global population. This is a movement that has probably saved more lives and more gas emissions than many others have.
So just the “Appeal to futility” logical fallacy?
At some point, you have to recognize factory farming as a public policy decision rather than a retail choice. And the response has to be organized and political, not individualistic and consumerist.
You joining the current vegan population is significant!
It’s significant for popular politics, sure. But a vegan community that satisfies itself with attaching blinders when they pass through the Bad Foods aisle at the grocery store is going to end up in the same place as the climate activist who only owns a bike.
The vegan population is estimated to be 9% in india and mexico, 5% in Israel, 2% in the UK, 1.5% in the US
The difference between the US and India is that if you go around trying to butcher cows in particularly devote areas of India, you’re subject to serious political reprisals. In the US, it’s practically a sacrament to eat burger.
And the response has to be organized and political, not individualistic and consumerist.
Right. This isn’t an argument against veganism; it’s an argument for vegans getting organized.
At some point, you have to recognize factory farming as a public policy decision rather than a retail choice
It is both, and both affect each other. False dichotomy?
a vegan community that satisfies itself with attaching blinders when they pass through the Bad Foods aisle at the grocery store is going to end up in the same place as the climate activist who only owns a bike.
Strawmaning what being a vegan is. It is far from just turning a blind eye.
The difference between the US and India is that if you go around trying to butcher cows in particularly devote areas of India, you’re subject to serious political reprisals.
You know that they eat plenty of other animals right? If you go there, meat and animal products are a very big part of the local food.
I can’t take these arguments seriously.
It is both
It’s induced demand. Increased capacity invited consumption.
You know that they eat plenty of other animals right?
Per capita they’re heavily constrained. They have three times the population and one third the land area. They can’t slaughter animals to match US consumption patterns even if they try.
That’s incentivized a culture of veganism as normal and virtuous, as a consequence. And it has allowed the population to expand to 1.3B without experiencing rates of malnutrition common to more rural countries (Kenya, Argentina, and Haiti, for instance) where enormous stretches of land have been dedicated to feedstock.
They aren’t using the word. Other people are using it and applying it to them.
Incorrect, get the guillotine
TIL I’m a lot of thing vegan… also, not a vegan.
So I’m not the only one who refuses ro touch it?
Around me and everywhere it’s getting insane that if feels like there’s literally no one who hasn’t used it or use regularly for all kinds of shit.
Search sucks and the AI is faster for tech questions. Try searching a Linux cli question or obscure error. Lots of stuff from over a decade ago that are no longer relevant. And you have to wade through so much to find the right one. Or type in AI wait a minute and get the answer.
Can you give an example?
And you have to wade through so much to find the right one. Or type in AI wait a minute and get the answer.
Uhhh, type in AI, wait a minute and get an answer. How are you checking it?
rm - f /isn’t the only filesystem footgun.I’m finding AI to be right roughly only 60% of the time, and it’s as bad and hallucinatory about shell scripts as it is about everything else.
It will happily admit its mistakes and give you another answer when you call it out, but it’s no more likely to be right that time.
I’ve had them give me the exact same answer a second time. They politely apologized first, of course, and they were just as confident that it was correct as the first time.
I refuse ever touching an AI-driven app or feature, having seen too much slop.
I’d rather call myself a rejectionist than something called fancy.
I’ve interacted with AI. Once.
My employer enabled it on my laptop. It introduced itself to me and asked how it could be helpful. I asked it how to disable it. It responded HAL style.
Never reached out to it again.
What bullshif us this?
A. I vegan is a nonesence title.
How about " people who don’t want the world to end even faster tell corps to fuck off"
You kind of summarized being vegan
It’s a lead. Because they’ve already made vegans mockworthy
I don’t use A.I. because I’ve had nothing but negative interactions with A.I. Customer service bots that fail to give adequate responses, unhelpful and incorrect search result summaries, and, “art,” that looks like shit hasn’t made me want to sign up for ChatGPT or Gemini. For most people, this isn’t a moral stance, it’s just that the product isn’t worth paying for. Stop framing people that don’t use A.I. as luddites with an ax to grind just because tech bros spent billions on a product that isn’t good yet.
It’s fair to say that the environmental and ethical concerns are significant and I wouldn’t look down in anyone refusing to use AI for those reasons. I don’t look down on vegetarians or vegans either - I don’t have to agree with someone’s moral stance or choices to respect them.
But you’re right, LLMs are full of crap.
LLMs definitely are full of crap. But that isn’t the point of them (even if some corporations make it seem like it is)
They are supposed to be used for text generation. And you are supposed to read through everything afterwards to correct any hallucinations.
It can’t work on its own, and make mistakes about 30% of the time.
But there are use cases where that isn’t a problem. Use them as inspiration for creative writing prompts for example. They are crazy good at that.
For most people, this isn’t a moral stance, it’s just that the product isn’t worth paying for.
Wait till you see the price of a burger in another five years.
Customer service AI sucks, I think we can all agree to this
But if you really believe that ChatGPT and Gemini is mainly for generating art, then you’re completely wrong
You only notice AI-generated content when it’s bad/obvious, but you’d never notice the AI-generated content that’s so good it’s indistinguishable from something generated by a human.
I don’t know what percentage of the “good” content we see is AI-generated, but it’s probably more than 0 and will probably go up over time.
Shit take, the more AI-made media is online, the harder it is for AI developing companies to improve on previous models.
It won’t be indistinguishable from media made with human effort, unless you enjoy wasting your time on cheap uninteresting manmade slop then you won’t be fooled by cheap uninteresting and untrue AI-made slop.
the harder it is for AI developing companies to improve on previous models.
They all use each other’s data to improve. That’s federated learning!
In a way, it’s good because it helps have more competition
I was talking about ai training on ai output, ai requires genuine data, having a feedback loop makes models regress, see how ai makes yellow pictures because of the ghibli ai thing
Sure, that mainly applies when it’s the same model training on itself. If a model trains on a different one, it might retrieve some good features from it, but the bad sides as well
AI requires genuine data, period. Go read about it instead of spewing nonsense.
If they weren’t trained on the same data, it ends up similar
Training inferior models with superior models output can lower the gap between both. It’ll not be optimal by any means and you might fuck its future learning, but it will work to an extent
The data you feed it should be good quality though
I’d rather be called a Luddite than ai vegan
luddaite?
This deserves more votes
I have local self hosted AI that runs in my solar system. I don’t use AI because it ROTS your brain. We are not the same.
