Unless you are working on some engineering or scientific problem that needs these models to get to a solution, even if it works for you, it’s still a waste of energy.
I have heavy problems to solve. Claude Opus could solve it. I could solve it too in 2 days or so on my own, but with Opus it was about half an hour.
I’m not advertising claude, if it gives bullshit response I turn it off instantly.
Another example: In the app I work, there’s a huge list of city integration files. I had a loose set of specifications for a new city, and with claude I could roll out a new prototype in no time. It saved me about a month of work.
Even if I grant that there’s a few super helpful uses that are good for humanity (and I don’t grant that at all), it’s still actively harmful to the other 99.3% of us.
Unless you’re saying it can end cancer, keep us young forever, provide literally limitless energy, and instantaneous networking, all while giving us potential to explore the universe, then it’s still not worth what it’s costing us RIGHT NOW.
Until you can make it do any of that without being owned or pushed by CEOs for money, then it will never be worth it.
Sure it could be useful if it didn’t cost anything and did everything, but that’s about as far as I believe it.
It should stay in the research and theory phase until it’s perfect. And it never will be, hence most people attitudes on it. No. 00000001% change of finding a good execution of a use is worth what it is costing us to try out.
The issue is people downoting him for stating a simple fact.
Like, I also use AI a bit, it can hepp productivity a lot too, and my opinion is still that overall if we had no ML at all the world woild be a better place than now, and that’s despite the many extremely good use cases for ML and even LLMs.
Billionaire tech bros stole all of the information on the internet and are using to make CSAM. it’s making all our energy prices increase and using up all of our water.
If you really can’t understand why people aren’t into that I really don’t know what else to tell you.
Except that no one screamed at them. Everyone posted a reasonable explanation as to why ai is a slop of shit. If that’s not a discussion then I don’t know what to tell you.
Okay, I’m positive it’s a waste of energy since it doesn’t work.
It does work for me. I use it and it is helping a lot.
Unless you are working on some engineering or scientific problem that needs these models to get to a solution, even if it works for you, it’s still a waste of energy.
I have heavy problems to solve. Claude Opus could solve it. I could solve it too in 2 days or so on my own, but with Opus it was about half an hour.
I’m not advertising claude, if it gives bullshit response I turn it off instantly.
Another example: In the app I work, there’s a huge list of city integration files. I had a loose set of specifications for a new city, and with claude I could roll out a new prototype in no time. It saved me about a month of work.
It’s expensive and energy hungry for sure.
It sometimes works for me. But the old computer truth of garbage in garbage out still applies. It’s got the world’s garbage to sift through.
If everyone’s just gonna down vote this I’m not sure there’s any room for understanding in this crowd
Looks like you’re the one without understanding.
Even if I grant that there’s a few super helpful uses that are good for humanity (and I don’t grant that at all), it’s still actively harmful to the other 99.3% of us.
Unless you’re saying it can end cancer, keep us young forever, provide literally limitless energy, and instantaneous networking, all while giving us potential to explore the universe, then it’s still not worth what it’s costing us RIGHT NOW.
Until you can make it do any of that without being owned or pushed by CEOs for money, then it will never be worth it.
Sure it could be useful if it didn’t cost anything and did everything, but that’s about as far as I believe it.
It should stay in the research and theory phase until it’s perfect. And it never will be, hence most people attitudes on it. No. 00000001% change of finding a good execution of a use is worth what it is costing us to try out.
The issue is people downoting him for stating a simple fact.
Like, I also use AI a bit, it can hepp productivity a lot too, and my opinion is still that overall if we had no ML at all the world woild be a better place than now, and that’s despite the many extremely good use cases for ML and even LLMs.
My point is the group here has made it quite clear there’s no room for honest discussion. And that’s pretty weak.
There would be, if it was any less black and white. Show something worth discussing and people would jump at that conversation.
Given that they’re doesn’t seen to be much coming up in that vein, there’s no room. Room would be made of there was something to make room for.
Billionaire tech bros stole all of the information on the internet and are using to make CSAM. it’s making all our energy prices increase and using up all of our water.
If you really can’t understand why people aren’t into that I really don’t know what else to tell you.
You really just prove my point. Someone posted they found a good use for it and you just want to scream at them. That’s not a discussion.
Except that no one screamed at them. Everyone posted a reasonable explanation as to why ai is a slop of shit. If that’s not a discussion then I don’t know what to tell you.
Now you can be sure.