Lots of people on Lemmy really dislike AI’s current implementations and use cases.

I’m trying to understand what people would want to be happening right now.

Destroy gen AI? Implement laws? Hoping all companies use it for altruistic purposes to help all of mankind?

Thanks for the discourse. Please keep it civil, but happy to be your punching bag.

  • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 hours ago

    People haven’t ”thought for themselves” since the printing press was invented. You gotta be more specific than that.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Ah, yes, the 14th century. That renowned period of independent critical thought and mainstream creativity. All downhill from there, I tell you.

      • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Independent thought? All relevant thought is highly dependent of other people and their thoughts.

        That’s exactly why I bring this up. Having systems that teach people to think in a similar way enable us to build complex stuff and have a modern society.

        That’s why it’s really weird to hear this ”people should think for themselves” criticism of AI. It’s a similar justification to antivaxxers saying you ”should do your own research”.

        Surely there are better reasons to oppose AI?

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I agree on the sentiment, it was just a weird turn of phrase.

          Social media has done a lot to temper my techno-optimism about free distribution of information, but I’m still not ready to flag the printing press as the decay of free-thinking.

          • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Things are weirder than they seem on the surface.

            A math professor collegue of mine calls extremely restrictive use of language ”rigor”, for example.

            • Libra00@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              The point isn’t that it’s restrictive, the point is that words have precise technical meanings that are the same across authors, speakers, and time. It’s rigorous because of that precision and consistency, not just because it’s restrictive. It’s necessary to be rigorous with use of language in scientific fields where clear communication is difficult but important to get right due to the complexity of the ideas at play.

        • Soleos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 hours ago

          The usage of “independent thought” has never been “independent of all outside influence”, it has simply meant going through the process of reasoning–thinking through a chain of logic–instead of accepting and regurgitating the conclusions of others without any of one’s own reasoning. It’s a similar lay meaning as being an independent adult. We all rely on others in some way, but an independent adult can usually accomplish activities of daily living through their own actions.