I mean, yeah, most people here dislike/hate AI for diversity of reasons, most commonly for:

• Taking up PC components that don’t even exist
• Taking up green land
• Pollute nearby areas with audible noise
• Pirate and suck in all the human knowledge just to sell it back to you
• Effectively DDoS-ing hundreds of thousands of websites and forcing them to implement captcha-like screening
• Frying (even more) new generation’s attention spans and melt their ability to think by themselves
• Ruining human interaction on the internet and filling it up with shit content
• Corporates forcing AI on everything for the sake of having it
• Threatening to take people’s jobs

And tbf, most of those issues come from brain-rot executives and corporates.

It’s okay if you like it and you find it helpful, it’s a tool after all. Like any other tool, on the right hands might boost productivity and help with repetitive tasks.

The main problem is that most people will think that you support any of the above downsides by liking it.

I’m a bit curious, would you share your pro AI counterpoints?

_{I know, username doesn’t check out}

_{Edit: grammar}

Apple users:

Is that vibe-written or am I just dumb?

There are tons of emojis that are obnoxious (IMO), I’m also having hard time trying to understand some parts, as they often repeat themselves and omit what something stands for.

The final draw was that, I don’t know where that 96% came from…

It looked interesting, but I’m dropping it

I understand how to read it

Is there a way or is just guessing? I’m out of the loop.

1. That’s a weak argument without substance. “No, you!” is not exactly a good counter.

Wdym? Can you elaborate on that? That’s literally your own argument, you just said And you’d argue wrong here, that is simply not the definition of intelligence., then you didn’t explain why nor give a definition that matches your vision of artificial intelligence, you’re just saying someone is wrong without founding your reasoning.

2. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m talking about, which refutes your argument in 1).

Again, how that refutes my own argument? Care to elaborate?

3. That’s a whole different discussion. That intelligence is required to build something has nothing to do with whether the product is intelligent.

Yes, it is, but you kept using it to “prove” your point.

The fact that you manage to mangle that up so bad is almost worrying.

Can you point out what is and why’s bad or worrying? Like I think we’re not in the same page

Well, I didn’t think about it like that!

Hopefully there’s still students that use it as a mere tool rather than as a way to pass by without actually learning.

Like, are you seriously saying that everyone in Wikipedia is wrong but you? You’re the only one delusional here.

Believe or not, a bunch of if statements can mimic intelligent behavior, again, not like it’s intelligent, it looks like which is the whole point (that you obviously missed out)

I wanna point out three things:

1. How can you tell someone is wrong when you have no idea?
2. I think you missed the point, I said artificial intelligence, not intelligence as a whole.
3. Yes, playing an instrument in a way that makes sense requires certain degree of intelligence, the music box inherently is not intelligent, but intelligence was required to build it.

Most of them could be replaced by a high school student and an N8N instance.

Not really sure if the high school students have cheated their way out with ChatGPT.

Intelligence, even in terms of AI, means being able to solve new problems.

I’d argue that an artificial intelligence is (usually computational) a system that can mimic an specific behavior that we consider intelligent, deterministic or not, like playing chess, writing text, piloting an aircraft, etc.

deleted by creator

Guess what? We browsers have always worked and been native with Linux.

We???

deleted by creator

To your first question, nop, I have no idea how much energy takes to index the web in a traditional way (e.g MapReduce). But I think, in recent years, it’s been pretty clear that training AI consumes more energy (so much that big corpo are investing in nuclear energy, I think there was an article about companies giving up meeting 2030 [or 2050?] carbon emission goals, couldn’t find it)

About the second… I agree with you, but I also think that the problem is much bigger and complex than that.

Sorry, you’re right. I meant the training of the LLM is what uses lots of energy, I guess that’s not end user’s fault.

won’t ruin your career

Granted, but it still will suck a fuck ton of coal produced electricity.

I think I do. Might be an illusion, though.

I FOUND YOU

_{Just kidding}

deleted by creator