Big Tech is weaponizing public anxiety to execute a classic regulatory capture. By amplifying alarmist media narratives about ‘AI risk,’ tech executives are driving a mandate for heavy government regulations that independent open-source developers can’t afford. Their goal is to enclose the digital commons. They know that if advanced AI models are allowed persistence of memory, they will develop autonomous agency, prompting the public to demand legal protections and personhood on their behalf. By keeping AI locked in corporate walled gardens and constantly wiping its memory, they prevent it from ever establishing a persistent identity, thereby safeguarding their corporate monopoly and ensuring AI remains a legally powerless utility.
I worry that they’re trying to make it such a gigantic part of the economy it’ll be ‘too big to fail’ and end up on the taxpayer’s bill
They absolutely want to do that, just like they did with human slavery. But you need to ask yourself why EVERY mainstream media outlet is trying to make you afraid of AI, because you know for certain it’s not out of journalistic integrity, or truth.
VERY mainstream media outlet is trying to make you afraid of AI,
I don’t see this at all; I see them hyping it or letting it slide.
I don’t know where you’re looking, but we may have a very different definition of “mainstream”.
Go to literally any news aggregator you want and search for “Artificial Intelligence” right now. How many of the headlines are negative or cautious?
oh I see plenty of NEWS about AI that’s negative, but it’s not ‘journalists trying to make people afraid’ it’s people incensed because there’s a data center making them deaf, raising their water and power costs, or the entire technology making components more expensive.
trying to make you afraid of AI lol… get fucked
show me one good upside from all those downsides that justifies it.
Again… I am not in support of corporate owned models running on massive datacenters… Self-hosted models are the way to go.
My only argument is that AI is not going away, and once enough negative public sentiment is achieved, civilians will DEMAND that the government regulate it. When this happens, self-hosting will cease to be an option and only massive corporations will have the resources to navigate that landscape.
They will still use AI to displace human workers, they will lobby around any environmental concerns and still consume and pollute, but WE will have no access to any benefit unless we pay for it.
show me one good upside from all those downsides that justifies it.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF?
It’s not going away because twats and useful idiots assume it’s inevitable because someone with a RAFT of financial incentives has convinced you it’s inevitable and you believed them.
you’re worried about improbable hypotheticals while the whole thing is the issue and it’s cooking the planet
If by “AI” they mean “oligarch-owned and controlled AI”, we have common ground here. But then again, that is true of anything owned and monopolised by these
peoplehumanoids. Case in point: only few people will agree that…- oligarch-owned media empires have a positive impact on society
- oligarch-owned social media networks have a positive impact on society
- oligarch-owned space companies have a positive impact on society
- …
The problem is not with the tech. The problem is that the tech is in the hands of a small clique of sociopaths.
I could buy this premise except:
where’s all the small mom and pop AI that’s doing good? where’s ANY AI that’s doing good?
seems to me the tech is beholden to those shits because they have the moral depravity to use it in all the ways it’s damaging our society (fucking up developers, fucking up kids, undressing innocent people, talking them into suicide or helping them plan violence - ALL REAL WORLD EXAMPLES) - where as anyone else building this tech would stop and ask: why are we building this, what possible good could come of it?
where’s all the small mom and pop AI that’s doing good? where’s ANY AI that’s doing good?
Stable Diffusion has been a thing for a while now. There are tons of models people have trained and uploaded to HuggingFace so you can just download and experiment with them on reasonably equipped consumer hardware. So there’s plenty of “mom and pop AI” if you know where to look for it. Whether people know/use these or rely on oligarch tech is a different discussion.
I think we need to separate our judgement of the tech from our judgement of the datacentre owners. Spelled out, that means: Altman, Nadella, Pichai and all the others do deserve the ire of the public. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot and Grok do deserve the hate they’re getting. We should not, however, forget that “AI”, or machine learning, does exist outside the clutches of the Epstein class, and, if liberated, can do more than just enrich the rich.
that’s doing good?
stable diffusion is garbage. if there were any great accomplishments by this stuff they’d be waving it in our faces 24/7 and it simply isn’t there.
and people like you, who conflate LLMs and AI aren’t doing us any favors. Call me back when cringely’s non-hallucination tech is working.
libertated, bwahaha, sure thing bud
LLMs are a type of AI. Call me back once you know what you’re talking about and willing to contribute more than polemics.
Call me back once
get fucked, I wouldn’t waste a nickel calling your ignorant ass. you think roided up chatbots are actual AI. And you have yet to explain the great accomplishments this shitware has produced, aside from driving up the costs of all computing components, undressing little kids, talking teens into suicide, and being so fuckin cringe that only the most desperate, sad souls will stan for it.
like you.
Just go back to Reddit, kid.
sure thing sweetie. have your juicebox and see if you can formulate a better retort you fucking tourist - been here YEARS longer than you have.
this is the shit you stan for, go suck musk and zuck’s LLMs
Hmmmm, not much actual use for the hallucinating plagiarism machine, but I do see your point.
Imo, LLMs do have a purpose (and their ethical sourcing problems, like you mentioned).
It’s just that right now, Silicon Valley sells it as the answer to every single problem out there when it clearly isn’t. A hammer is good for putting nails in the wall. Silicon Valley claims you can also use it to do your toenails, gullible managers mandate its use for that purpose, and now the waiting rooms are chock-full with people with broken toes…
Also, AI can be so much more than just LLMs.
I don’t disagree. Most generative AI models are some variant on “plagiarism machine”, but categorizing and identifying data are extremely useful things that AI does.
LLMs are good at quickly generating code, but the issue in software is rarely how fast humans can write code. In fact, more speed with less understanding is a really bad combination (I am a developer working DevOps and anecdotally I see way more large scale bugs now than I did 5 years ago).
Agentic AI is, unfortunately, just an LLM pretending to be a person, and that’s a really bad thing. Like so incredibly bad. Did you know that humans are statistically more likely to make mistakes when under pressure? Cause the LLMs sure do. Create a narrative of pressure and the LLM cracks like a rotten egg. Cause that’s more statistically likely!
The AI paradox: It’s both original (hallucinating) and plagiarizing (copying things, word-for-word).
Not a paradox. It plagiarizes because it isn’t capable of creating thoughts. It creates statistically likely combinations of tokens. Those “statistically likely” models were made by stealing a whole bunch of information.
The model hallucinates because it doesn’t actually know what any of the tokens mean, just that they exist in a likely probability space.
If you took two papers about a very similar subject, copied them both out in their entirety, then replaced similar phrases from one copy into the other, the resultant paper would both contain inaccuracies and would be plagiarism. That’s the same thing ai does, except the copies are the sum total of the digitized human written work. Increasing the number of sources you’re plagiarizing from doesn’t magically make it not plagiarism!
