Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Personally I think the vast majority AI is ethically indefensible purely based on how it was trained. Generative AI represents, at best, the privatization of culture by for-profit corporations, and at worst, one of the most unprecedented instances of exploitation of human labor and creativity in history.
And you don't have to take my word for it because it was recently uncovered in court that Microsoft director of applied science Brent Hecht called it the "largest theft of labor in human history".
Even if we were to totally ignore how wasteful most AI is, how damaging to the climate it is, and how much it threatens to further broaden the gap between the rich and the poor, I already hate AI for what is so obviously the capitalistic strip-mining of all human culture in the name of creating shareholder value.
Pro-AI people love to brush off pretty much all of the ethical concerns with the simple argument that the ends justify the means. I reject that outright, but for the sake of argument I want you all to consider whether that is even a valid point... Do the ends justify the means? We are doing all of this AI shit to what ends?
Who benefits from this supposedly increased "productivity"? Definitely not the working class who have at most a relatively minor stake in the success of big tech businesses. Can anyone seriously claim we are seeing things improve at all, let alone an accelerating rate? Do we really see AI bringing about a utopian society where everything is great? Or are we seeing things enshittify and become more corporate and less affordable week by week? Is any of this shit making your life easier or better?
Now don't get me wrong... it seems to be making some things much easier: scams, disinformation, surveillance, propaganda, fraud, and of course generic commercialized slop. We honestly couldn't ask for a better set of tools to trick people into giving us money. Generative AI has truly disrupted the market for scams, and it seems that it has brought about a new golden age of fraudulence.
Not to be a wet blanket, but I feel this stuff really needs a reality check too.
"Open weights" is nothing more than a freeware binary blob.
I can see how that's at least preferable to using some company's subscription service, but at the same time your local LLM still has a hard dependency on someone else's corporate training dataset (pretty much all the result of stolen labor, by the way), and so it's very much not as "open" or "local" as people like to make it out to be. And from an ethical standpoint, it's not a whole lot different either way.
I think an ethical alternative to today's generative AI could exist--if it was trained on public domain, creative commons and licensed data, and thus not exploiting human labor and culture--but I'm not seeing people invest any time in making that.
I think it's ethically indefensible, but because of the environmental impact of data centers.
I don't disagree with that.
But a magical, new, clean, and infinite fusion power source could be invented tomorrow, and AI would still be deeply exploitative of human labor.
So, to me at least, in addition to the environmental impact, the cultural and social impact can't be overstated. It's all bad.
Ethical training data could exit, but I don't think public domain/creative commons/licensed are quite good enough (almost no one who contributed knew what AI would become until recently, and some of those people are still alive). Although that's better.
A truly ethical training dataset for AI would be one that everyone who created the training data opted into. And I don't mean their employer or photography sharing platform signed a license deal, I mean they personally opted in. If AI is so great, I'm sure plenty of people will be happy to contribute their art, photos, writing, code, social media posts, etc. All the pro-AI people can just band together and make their own dataset to use.
That doesn't solve all the other issues with generative AI, but it would make a huge difference.
I get what you're saying, but that is sort of a failure of imagination on the part of the licensor, in my opinion...
While I can understand some people being surprised by how their explicitly public domain or cc0 works are currently being used, this is inherently part of the risk you take when you opt into giving your work an extremely permissive license in the first place.
If you put something out there and tell the world "you can use this freely, forever, for whatever you want", you are committing to all kinds of potential uses, known and unknown, within the scope of that license.
Contributing someone into the public domain is a nice thought for sure, but it's also not something to take lightly because you really don't know what it might one day be used for, and you are relinquishing a lot of your (legal) rights.
This is my biggest concern for sure.
As far as the ethical concerns go for "local" models how do you feel about individuals using it for non-commercial use? A toy/hobby/assistant for their own home use? I personally have been enjoying "playing" with it, but I do agree in that I hate how they've come to obtain the training data. I hate the companies that create it and profit off of it, but personally I don't feel too guilty using it as a toy/hobby if it's a model that was released for free to be used on your own hardware.