this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
352 points (96.8% liked)

Fuck AI

8335 readers
2367 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/52697114

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Glitterkoe@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Also it's a sales tactic. "our AI is so clever, it's so scary!" wink wink

It just means they don't invest enough in proper sandboxing and does NOT diminish the abhorrent resource usage and blatant data theft and plagiarism committed by these companies, while they poison the well of information that is the internet for everyone else.

Meanwhile their faux experts feed us questionable information, but you should always check it yourself (right). If I ask any other expert for advice that turns out to be blatantly false, you would keep them accountable for damages.

The danger is that we can't seem to hold them accountable for anything, not that the thing is "dangerously clever". If someone builds a bad bot (regular software or AI/MCP/harness), they should be fully responsible. Just don't run it if you can't guarantee safe operations.

That it's hard for them to properly credit where their training data came from should be their problem and a hard prerequisite for publishing or allowing usage of models. Ripping off everything ever published online has never been OK in the first place. They are 'asking for forgiveness later' and should definitely not get it.

The training and exploitation of these models should be subjected to pollution tax just like any other industry. Water is becoming more and more scarce around the globe and humongous electricity consumption isn't magically pollution free because it isn't fossil fuels. The precious metals in all chips and datacenters are even further from "clean".

Don't even get me started on the societal and psychological impacts...

These companies (and to an extent their users) will never self-regulate, we need our governments to actually step up here.

[–] red_tomato@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I can imagine some government prompting an LLM to break into some other governments system to steal state secrets.

”Here are the files you were after. Btw, I also stumbled across the nuclear launch codes, which I’ve confirmed are working. Was I a good machine? :3”

[–] Glitterkoe@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Sure, bots and scripts can pull off dark shit, but that makes it an international offense, not an AI oopsie.

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean AI data centers are a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions too

[–] savvie@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago

also, don’t forget the forever chemicals (pfas) they require

[–] undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 14 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I thought the people in power were promoting AI, especially since they’re the ones investing in it so much.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

The message is basically that it is too dangerous for you to run on your computer. They want to sell you it through a subscription service.

[–] LSNLDN@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah they’re promoting it by saying 😱_omg it’s so dangerous you need to regulate us_ knowing that no one will and it’ll just scare people into thinking it’s going to be all powerful, and that gives those in positions of power massive hard ons for more authoritarian control. Or something like that idk Cory Doctorow saying interesting things about it recently, nice antidote to all the scare hype atm

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

They know LLM have serious diminishing returns now, can't grow much anymore and certainly not get to AGI anytime soon but investors won't like the message, so if the government sees it as too dangerous and pulls the handbrake right about now that'd be so convenient. Certainly if it also keeps out or limits (Chinese) competitors.

Ehh AI is killing us now with emissions

[–] 20cello@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah,AI is just another tool for them to kill us all

[–] kurmudgeon@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

And don't forget, they like to rape kids too

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

If you think hard about it....

in 100 years, by all experience the current wars will be so irrelevant that nobody will even bother to piss on the current warmongers graves. They will be mostly forgotten.

In 100 years, our today's leaders inactivity on imminent climate destruction - and transitively, our collective inaction - will be daily cause for deep desperation and the darkest curses which childs of the human race have ever uttered. For what we know sufficiently, people will likely witness the disintegration of our current technical civilization. Because 3 degrees warming is way too much for a technical civilization to survive.

Maybe because of my lack of expertise in history, but I can´t imagine find any example in history of such epic stupidity. Remember that qualitatively, we know exactly what will happen.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

100 years

First of all, everything you described is coming much sooner than that. Divide it by five and even that's conservative imo.

people will likely witness the disintegration of our current technical civilization. Because 3 degrees warming is way too much for a technical civilization to survive.

It seems like maybe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why climate change is going to kill us. Being a "technical civilization" isn't relevant to whether we survive it or not. We're talking about ecological collapse, and conditions that the human body literally cannot survive in. Like physically incapable. "Technical civilization" or not.

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

In 100 years

You mean in a decade, what with crises getting worse much sooner, as even some wealthier countries are starting to literally feel the heat. Civil disorder is not an impossibility.

[–] cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't see why the legislature shouldn't comply with their request for the industry to be regulated. What's the objection to that?

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 2 points 2 weeks ago

From Trump at least, the objection seems to be that China wouldn't regulate their industry - but then China could just argue the same in an infinite loop of nobody doing any form of regulation

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

we shouldn't care about the thing that will kill us in all in the near future because there are other things that are also killing us.

Bad take.

[–] hneerqe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

~~Men~~ Homunculi in power adore immigrants. They created desperate people in poor countries. These people will want to come to expensive countries and accept any terms the ~~men~~ homunculi in power can get away with, to increase their margins by lowering wages and worker rights.

[–] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

That was my first thought when I saw a headline this morning about the treat of AI. Don't get me wrong, I do believe AI is a threat, however Trump is going to kill the world first if he isn't dealt with.

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The threat of AI is unknown and unsure. Climate change is going to kill or severely harm billions, in the next 100 years, and we know this for a fact. Conservative media wants to distract from their massive failures with a new boogeyman, they just randomly rolled one that might actually be a problem in the future.