Nowhere did you address the fact that inauthentic communication is alienating. The fact that seeing a nonhuman as if it were human is alienating.
I feel like these abstract concepts are above your understanding so I’ll give you an example. Two people are in a relationship, relationships are hard and require a lot of work because people have distinct needs save wants and relationships require compromise. Now I throw AI into the mix, maybe a really good quality AI. Now they have something with no needs and wants that can give them exactly what they ask for. That’s so much easier than a human relationship, but it has none of the positive social and community building effects of a real relationship. It’s like fast food or processed sugar, cheap, easy to get, and engineered to stimulate your taste receptors, but zero nutritional value. Sure you can argue all you like about individual responsibility but we already know the effect of sugar and fast food: epidemic of obesity.
AI will do the same except instead of destroying our bodies it will destroy our communities because every interaction with it is alienating.
I never said anything about seeing beautiful AI art then choosing to hate it for unclear reasons. The more beautiful and emotionally engaging it is the more alienating from humanity. I’m not denying it was emotionally engaging just like I’m not denying fast food and candy taste good, they’re all designed that way. I’m saying that the consumption (of sugary, fast food, and AI) is bad for us as a society.
I’m not sure why I’m even engaging with you. Your arguments are accusatory, dishonest, and in bad faith. You constantly straw man what I’m saying then spend your time arguing against that instead of actually engaging. Maybe I’m just arguing against an AI model because this interaction sucks.
“Taco Bell isn’t a quality problem, it’s bad nutrition”
“You’re prejudiced against Taco Bell, you’d hate it even if it tasted good”
“No, i hate it because of nutrition not taste”
“See if Taco Bell made good tasting food, then I fed it to you telling you it wasn’t Taco Bell, then you said you liked it, then I reveal my trick you’d spit it out and say it tasted bad all along”
“No, if it tasted good I would admit it, that doesn’t mean it’s good for you, that’s why I hate it, it’s not the taste it’s the nutrition that’s my problem”
I’m not going to keep doing this, if you don’t understand why it’s bad to replace humans in our lives and communities with machines, especially ones trained by greedy capitalists, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Inauthentic communication was already alienating when humans did it.
Nutrition is a quality. Eating only candy is bad because of the qualities of candy. You are explicitly saying, those don’t matter.
A work of art could be fantastic - positive and constructive in every regard! - and your opinion would flip on a dime if you learned it was AI. That’s not rational. That’s not any reflection of its impact, because its impact is covered by “in every regard.” You’re not worried that flawed art will change people’s tastes; you’re suggesting that even good art can make people less human. “Your brain is changing towards a machine’s language.” Even if that language was indistinguishable from masterful human artistry, until someone told you otherwise.
As if it’s an evil superintelligence secretly manipulating mankind, and not a jumped-up Photoshop filter satisfying labels a person wrote.
Look at the material implementations that exist. Look at grok, it’s routinely fine-tuned to “stop being woke” at the cost of Truth because of Musk. I’m not scared of an evil superintelligence, I’m concerned these machines are owned and biased by rich people who have the opposite of our best interests at heart.
If there were some mythical AI that was trained from the ground up using a comprehensive approach designed to put the good of humanity and every individual first above any concept of profit or “engagement” then sure, conceptually it could produce content that would elevate humanity instead of alienating it. But to act as if modern implementations are an apolitical “Photoshop filter” and not a machine designed owned and operated by a class of explicitly evil people is disingenuous. I have yet to see a local model that was trained independently from capitalist owned models, or that use a fundamentally different approach.
By your logic communism could work and is worth pursuing. In practice it’s only ever created barbaric state capitalist societies and a bureaucratic ruling class. It never abolished capitalism or class nor even headed in that direction. So in practice I’m against it. Just like in practice AI is fundamentally alienating and I’m against it.
You can try to separate a concept from its implementation all you want, but the implementation is the only aspect that affects our material conditions as a society and as individuals.
By your logic communism could work and is worth pursuing.
… who are you talking to? This is the thread where you opened by appealing to Marx.
Whatever.
You are describing a solvable problem. It is obviously possible to make the models you want. The fact it hasn’t happened yet, and would be difficult, cannot match your repeated insistence that these are fundamental problems with neural networks as a concept.
Local models do what you tell 'em. Whatever’s missing can be added in. I think you know this, because you pivoted pretty suddenly from a bunch of things local models solve, to insisting local models must be artisinal and bespoke, and also work differently… somehow. That’s a lot of rhetorical escape routes away from nuanced understanding of a complex topic.
I’m just trying to engage with you here when I talk about local models. So far I haven’t seen any implementations that are meaningfully different from capitalist owned AI. Most local models train using the corporate LLMs. They don’t “do what you tell them”, you can’t separate the LLM training from its output. And when the training is based on corporate models which are heavily biased in favour of corporate/capitalist desires then your local model has the same biases. All I’m saying is local models have the same problems of alienation because they’re trained off of corporate models.
You also didn’t capture my arguments in your CYOA. AI is fundamentally alienating because instead of communicating with another human being you’re communicating with a machine that caters to corporate/capitalist greed.
You are still describing a solvable problem. One I’m not even sure is valid, given the unguided training of most models. Input data takes the commercial fishing approach. That’s where you put a net in the water and scoop up the everything.
They can’t convince these things there’s three Rs in “strawberry.” Any bias more complicated than Elmo snorting a brick of K, and putting “you are mechahitler” into the prompt, is probably an accurate reflection of the zeitgeist. If you think exhibiting societal values disqualifies a text from being art… there isn’t any. Everything exists within a context.
Since that hasn’t stopped anyone from making Judy Hopps x Tracer t4t mpreg porn, I think we can say, these models are not constrained by their origins.
Nowhere did you address the fact that inauthentic communication is alienating. The fact that seeing a nonhuman as if it were human is alienating.
I feel like these abstract concepts are above your understanding so I’ll give you an example. Two people are in a relationship, relationships are hard and require a lot of work because people have distinct needs save wants and relationships require compromise. Now I throw AI into the mix, maybe a really good quality AI. Now they have something with no needs and wants that can give them exactly what they ask for. That’s so much easier than a human relationship, but it has none of the positive social and community building effects of a real relationship. It’s like fast food or processed sugar, cheap, easy to get, and engineered to stimulate your taste receptors, but zero nutritional value. Sure you can argue all you like about individual responsibility but we already know the effect of sugar and fast food: epidemic of obesity.
AI will do the same except instead of destroying our bodies it will destroy our communities because every interaction with it is alienating.
I never said anything about seeing beautiful AI art then choosing to hate it for unclear reasons. The more beautiful and emotionally engaging it is the more alienating from humanity. I’m not denying it was emotionally engaging just like I’m not denying fast food and candy taste good, they’re all designed that way. I’m saying that the consumption (of sugary, fast food, and AI) is bad for us as a society.
I’m not sure why I’m even engaging with you. Your arguments are accusatory, dishonest, and in bad faith. You constantly straw man what I’m saying then spend your time arguing against that instead of actually engaging. Maybe I’m just arguing against an AI model because this interaction sucks.
“Taco Bell isn’t a quality problem, it’s bad nutrition”
“You’re prejudiced against Taco Bell, you’d hate it even if it tasted good”
“No, i hate it because of nutrition not taste”
“See if Taco Bell made good tasting food, then I fed it to you telling you it wasn’t Taco Bell, then you said you liked it, then I reveal my trick you’d spit it out and say it tasted bad all along”
“No, if it tasted good I would admit it, that doesn’t mean it’s good for you, that’s why I hate it, it’s not the taste it’s the nutrition that’s my problem”
I’m not going to keep doing this, if you don’t understand why it’s bad to replace humans in our lives and communities with machines, especially ones trained by greedy capitalists, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Inauthentic communication was already alienating when humans did it.
Nutrition is a quality. Eating only candy is bad because of the qualities of candy. You are explicitly saying, those don’t matter.
A work of art could be fantastic - positive and constructive in every regard! - and your opinion would flip on a dime if you learned it was AI. That’s not rational. That’s not any reflection of its impact, because its impact is covered by “in every regard.” You’re not worried that flawed art will change people’s tastes; you’re suggesting that even good art can make people less human. “Your brain is changing towards a machine’s language.” Even if that language was indistinguishable from masterful human artistry, until someone told you otherwise.
As if it’s an evil superintelligence secretly manipulating mankind, and not a jumped-up Photoshop filter satisfying labels a person wrote.
Look at the material implementations that exist. Look at grok, it’s routinely fine-tuned to “stop being woke” at the cost of Truth because of Musk. I’m not scared of an evil superintelligence, I’m concerned these machines are owned and biased by rich people who have the opposite of our best interests at heart.
If there were some mythical AI that was trained from the ground up using a comprehensive approach designed to put the good of humanity and every individual first above any concept of profit or “engagement” then sure, conceptually it could produce content that would elevate humanity instead of alienating it. But to act as if modern implementations are an apolitical “Photoshop filter” and not a machine designed owned and operated by a class of explicitly evil people is disingenuous. I have yet to see a local model that was trained independently from capitalist owned models, or that use a fundamentally different approach.
By your logic communism could work and is worth pursuing. In practice it’s only ever created barbaric state capitalist societies and a bureaucratic ruling class. It never abolished capitalism or class nor even headed in that direction. So in practice I’m against it. Just like in practice AI is fundamentally alienating and I’m against it.
You can try to separate a concept from its implementation all you want, but the implementation is the only aspect that affects our material conditions as a society and as individuals.
… who are you talking to? This is the thread where you opened by appealing to Marx.
Whatever.
You are describing a solvable problem. It is obviously possible to make the models you want. The fact it hasn’t happened yet, and would be difficult, cannot match your repeated insistence that these are fundamental problems with neural networks as a concept.
Local models do what you tell 'em. Whatever’s missing can be added in. I think you know this, because you pivoted pretty suddenly from a bunch of things local models solve, to insisting local models must be artisinal and bespoke, and also work differently… somehow. That’s a lot of rhetorical escape routes away from nuanced understanding of a complex topic.
These threads are the weirdest shit, because people’s hot takes sound alike for a few sentences, then veer off for wildly incompatible reasons. ‘It’ll never be art, quality is irrelevant!’ And then choose your own adventure: (a) ‘Because the FOSS community won’t replace this monolithic project.’ (b) ‘Because rendering isn’t art.’ © ‘Because only a divine human soul can imbue a political cartoon with Meaning.™’ (d) ‘Because you need more than a prompt. What’s a control net?’ (e) ‘Because we all care deeply about copyright.’
I’m just trying to engage with you here when I talk about local models. So far I haven’t seen any implementations that are meaningfully different from capitalist owned AI. Most local models train using the corporate LLMs. They don’t “do what you tell them”, you can’t separate the LLM training from its output. And when the training is based on corporate models which are heavily biased in favour of corporate/capitalist desires then your local model has the same biases. All I’m saying is local models have the same problems of alienation because they’re trained off of corporate models.
You also didn’t capture my arguments in your CYOA. AI is fundamentally alienating because instead of communicating with another human being you’re communicating with a machine that caters to corporate/capitalist greed.
That’s (a).
You are still describing a solvable problem. One I’m not even sure is valid, given the unguided training of most models. Input data takes the commercial fishing approach. That’s where you put a net in the water and scoop up the everything.
They can’t convince these things there’s three Rs in “strawberry.” Any bias more complicated than Elmo snorting a brick of K, and putting “you are mechahitler” into the prompt, is probably an accurate reflection of the zeitgeist. If you think exhibiting societal values disqualifies a text from being art… there isn’t any. Everything exists within a context.
Since that hasn’t stopped anyone from making Judy Hopps x Tracer t4t mpreg porn, I think we can say, these models are not constrained by their origins.