Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
What the flog is wrong with having AI make a poster as long as it's reasonably clean, professional, and free of slop content? Indeed, much of what AI can do in those situations is little more than automation acting on PhotoShop-like sets of tools.
Make all the AI content you want, says I, but here's a tip-- don't make it obvious that AI was used in its production. Bam, problem solved.
This is whats wrong with it
Now if you could put that in to your own words...
EDIT: To the enlightened downvoters-- that person's trying to get me to read a 5,000pp science paper instead of answering themselves.
Lmao the pro AI guy being too lazy to skim a paper for information is too on the nose. It's in 4.1 Median Model Energy Consumption.
The issue is that it'd take hundreds of times less energy to just put together something yourself, not to mention the massive energy cost of training the models in the first place. Plus you'd be developing a skill while doing creative work, which is great for your brain.
Nah you obviously dont care enough to read it so I'm good
GTFO. That's a ~5,000pp science paper. You want me to try to read and understand all that instead of you doing the simple of thing of using your own words to convey your point?
Fuck off, troll.
If it uses one of the online services, then it's a problem (environment, water etc).
You could somewhat make that argument for local models. But not many people are going to have any conception of that
Metrics are needed. Based on an article that Rimu shared a few days ago, I didn't get the impression that stuff like simple graphics work needed for a poster particularly added much strain.
There's also the simple fact that it's too late to be herding cats on this one. Most people who've gotten used to using AI for various tasks aren't going to give it up very easily. While I agree that it can be useful to talk up and spread the word about the destructiveness of AI costs, that energy and pressure ultimately needs to be funneled to lawmakers in order to draft and pass appropriate legislation.
It's also an issue that every person that complains about AI has absolutely no fucking idea what it is, how it works, how to differentiate different models/forms, or even why it's a special unique technology that is inherently bad. Unlike things like alcohol, X-rays, methamphetamines, gunpowder, oil, nuclear, mining, farming, etc, etc, that are only harmful when used/done wrong.
I don't understand how that could be at this point, but it would help explain the paranoia. To me, there's a huge difference between a simple, clean, low-cost use-case in which little or no trace of AI tools is detected, versus obvious AI slop media, versus having an LLM do extensive programming which winds up being filled with spaghetti code and whatever inefficiencies. The latter two involving a tonne more queries and tokens used.
It's all the same thing to a lot of people, I guess.
Because it has become a purity signal and tribal call rather than an actual coherent position. I've seen people get angry at researchers using AI to develop new drugs, and novel bacteriophages. I've seen people get angry at "AI" in word processing and image editing, claiming there's no difference between ChatGPT and the algorithms than have been used for decades.
There is such a idiotic mix-up between the horrible corruption of OpenAI, and the term "AI" itself, that morons with no understanding of anything are waving torches and grabbing pitchforks at the word itself, without any comprehension of what they're angry at.
Yeah, I guess that pretty-well covers it. Well said!
Not totally sure what you mean, there. I do use GPT a lot for complex searches, rarely anything else.
100% agree