I've seen this in a movie, I believe.

Maybe some average guy from the 90s will step out of a time capsule, fix the retarded state of the US, and then become president.

The _reporting_ makes it feel like deja vu. The reality is that Meta has sold _millions_ of these.

I'm betting that there are orders of magnitude more benign videos made with these than there are instances of people being harassed/secretly recorded with them. Remember how popular it is to make videos of everything and put them on Instagram, TikTok or Facebook. Most people love this shit, whether we like it or not.

Yes, nobody has ever sued the government and won. Unheard of.

Initial resistance like this is expected and nothing more than a speed bump to the people that want this. People who understand the dangers get tired, complacent, or if necessary harassed and convicted. People who don't understand get converted by propaganda or just by wanting to be part of 'their side' and argue in favor of these things (nothing to hide, think of the children, etc.).

You ignored the difference in subjects and treated data exactly as a fungible resource. Walking around and looking at the sky and grass is not the same as learning about quantum mechanics. Think about the _value_ of the data you yourself ingest: Is all that sensory data from you taking your morning shit really improving your understanding of the universe?

Also, "current top models" famously do NOT train using a clean library of tagged data. The next token in the input is the output, remember?

Finally, a lot of the data nowadays is synthesized and that works amazingly well for a variety of modalities.

This has to be nonsense, fundamentally speaking. "Data" is not some kind of fungible resource. Humans are 'trained' (in school) using a much smaller set of data for many subjects and given that we haven't reached AGI-levels of intelligence for those yet data clearly cannot be the bottleneck.

You can argue that we are lacking data for understanding/mastering of specific aspects of the universe (touch, motor control, etc.), but for many, many things a larger network might still allow capturing more subtle relations in the dataset or conversely more data might not improve anything.

Actual advice: if you just want to rant about something, do it in your diary. You're just wasting your time here. I responded to a specific statement with a specific reply and you clearly want to vent your anger about something related but markedly different. You don't even realize that with your lobbing of ad hominem shots my way and attacking straw facsimiles of my stance you're actually driving away a potential ally.

It's not healthy to point your anger outwards to strangers on the internet. I know you're feeling all righteous about your stance, but trust me that you'll feel much better if you let that go and objectively look at what was said in this thread. It leads to a much more reasonable and rational stance and a state of mind that can work towards actual solutions rather than "Burn and kill everything that has to do with AI!!".

Yes, you're confusing the tool for the application. Remember that the post I was initially responding to was specifically separating AI tools by kind, NOT by application. Read darkain's post again, then call me autistically pedantic again or apologize.

But I understand that you're disappointed in how the future turned out. I am too. Not because of the advances in AI and technology, though. But because the current set of humans and especially those in power (whether through money or politics) seem very clearly woefully inadequate and incompetent in moving past greed, selfishness, short-sightedness, and primitive behavior to make the world better, more just, kind, and peaceful.

OK, so what is the bad kind of AI?
Image generators? Video generators? Audio generators? Text generators?

Which kind of AI is "shitty slop"?

I think you're making a category mistake.

Thanks for this addition.

I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree here. Already, "data centers" have become "AI data centers" and many many people are waving their pitchforks around claiming that "data centers" add nothing of value and "suck up all our water" (even though golf courses and many other luxuries use and will be using orders of magnitude more water than data centers).

In a way it is surprising that classic xenophobia is still going so strong, but the blind hatred for AI simply because it is foreign to most humans is definitely growing fast. It'll really ramp up with stable embodiment for AI. A face people can detest or preferably a physical body they can destroy.

Having said that I do agree with you that there is a big chunk of "it's mostly benefiting the rich or intended to do so" present and that a proper redistribution of wealth via for instance UBI would make things a lot better for a lot of people.

UBI. Next question.

There really is no bad kind of AI here. These issues specifically are just Luddism, with which I don't mean there is no valid concern: Jobs in this sectorare definitely disappearing due to AI. The challenge is to integrate these new looms into society whilst ensuring people can continue to live comfortably. Banning or boycotting the looms is not a long-term strategy.

Let's be very clear, mass surveillance is exactly what this is.

1. It's being sold under the guise of license plate tracking (also in TFS), but there are Flock cameras installed in places where there is not a road in sight, such as in parks and on playgrounds. See for instance: https://www.reddit.com/r/Flock...
2. They automatically pan and zoom to faces and phones of pedestrians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (also, their security is apparently dogshit).

You mean the lawyers? Trying to prevent lawsuits from people who thrive on litigating away their own responsibility?

China censors stuff in the way you think it happens, but American companies are driven primarily by greed. If they could get away without putting in guardrails, they would very, very happily do so.

No, you are the first one to do so; You are very special.