thingsiplay

No, read again what I explained before. I explained the technical problems of the architectural flaws. There are deep problems with LLMs and I explained why some people have a problem with it. You might not care, but that doesn’t solve the problems.

There is a difference. I explain why you are dishonest and misleading. I don’t just accuse. So its based off technical reasoning and not just personally attacking without reason. You just have no arguments left and just attack personally instead basing off on reasoning. That is a huge difference.

Unless you have good arguments, LLMs have architectural flaws in their design and need to change. And that is a factual correct statement, which I explained earlier. That has nothing to do with an opinion.

You just come up with analogies that does not address the issues I am talking about. We are talking about the source code the LLMs copy and analyze and then not respect the license. They fail to provide the source code and source material they analyzed, so we could build the Ai models from scratch. And I am not talking about the data after training.

Your hammer analogy (and others) are absolutely not addressing any of these issues. Instead you talk about the end user that can misuse the tool, which is NOT what I am talking about. And now you start attacking personally because you ran out of arguments. Just wasting peoples time.

It’s like if I say that hammers are fantastic but everyone says that they are horrible because they have conceptual problems, murderous users are hitting people in the head with them, the companies are stealing wood and cutting down the rain forest to make them

Again wrong analogy just to disagree. That is not the conceptional problem with LLMs I talked about. It is a matter of fact that the LLMs are trained on data without respecting their license such as GPL, even worse when generating content. These are factual problems with the concept of LLMs. This is not like a hammer that was designed for a specific purpose, that is then misused as something else. That is not the issue whatsoever here. The design and philosophy of LLMs is deeply flawed in many ways.

The hammer analogy shows either you try to change the topic, or you don’t understand the issues I’m talking about. That is completely false analogy to the issues I brought up. Same with a knife or even a game controller. Just because you can misuse it, does not mean its wrongly designed. The user didn’t use it properly. That is NOT what I was talking about.

Using AI isn’t bad. The problems that people have with it has nothing to do with the technology itself.

We literally discussed about the problems of Ai the whole time… LLMs have conceptional problems, regardless who uses it. It is the technology that is the problem first, second problem are the companies abusing it even more and then the careless or greedy users too. Its threefold. Saying it has nothing to do with the technology itself is therefore wrong.

BTW so you agree with me then, because the only solution you see here to throw it away. Because what I described is not hallucinated by me, this is how its operate. It was to correct you for your wrong example with looking up a single information from Wikipedia.

we have to throw this technology out the window. It seems like a bad idea to do that though.

Why? Besides that’s not possible in the near future, it could be made illegal and then suddenly the biggest companies (the driver behind it) would have to stop. This wouldn’t eliminate all Ai tools everywhere, so getting rid of it is probably not possible anymore.

But that wasn’t my suggestion either. And we don’t have to throw it away, we have to comply. It needs to change.

I think they’re arguing that if I can look at the Wikipedia and tell you that an avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers, then AI should be allowed to as well.

This is misleading and dishonest. Its not just looking up a single free information. Ai does more than that. Ai will not only scrape and copy the entire article, it will also scrape and copy the entirety of Wikipedia. There are licenses attacked to the Wikipedia article we have to follow to, if we scrape and use it for other purposes. It will also scrape the entire web. That is not the same as just looking up an Avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers.

The difference is, you know which book you have a concern with. Ai does not operate like that. With using Ai, you don’t know which book the data is from and it is not possible for the Ai to tell you that. There are conceptional problems with Ai. Your book example does not work here, because that works differently than Ai.

If a company unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data, we don’t say that there are legitimate concerns using books.

Off course we say its a legitimate concern if someone unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data… The point of scraping and stealing data without respecting its license, training their software with it and using it commercially (or even non commercially) without giving even credit and not respecting its original license?

the problem that people … have with AI isn’t with the technology itself nor its use, but the methods by which the companies “grow and harvest it”, so to speak.

No, its not just the methods. I am talking about deep problems with the technology, the methods how companies go with it, and then its usage from company and end user. Ai trained with those data and used makes it impossible to respect the original license, for the user. So in this case, the company using the Ai AND the user of the model violate licenses. Maybe. Maybe not, if the data allows it. But we don’t know and CANNOT check and know for sure, that’s the problem. Just because you don’t understand the issue or don’t care does not make it less of a problem.

As an example with software licenses like GPL requires that any derivative works using this source code (such as Linux or whatever my personal program is licensed under GPL) has to be GPL licenses (Open Source) too. That is not debatable. That is how this license work. Now the Ai can be trained on this data, using the source code, and then? See where this goes? That is only one generalized example.

You’re problem with AI isn’t with the technology itself nor its use.

I’m not sure about the weed argument, can’t say anything about it. But first, my personal problem with Ai doesn’t matter to this disussion, as I was talking about what people could have an issue with, not about my personal problems. Secondly farming data without respecting the original license, not even linking to the source where it got from is in fact a problem with “its use”. That is an unsolved problem lot of people just ignore, which does not make it less of a problem (it makes it a bigger problem). And that is just a few issues I listed, not even talking about the problems of generated content. There are legitimate concerns using Ai, no matter how you frame it, some just choose to ignore it.

There’s nothing wrong with using AI

Well, that is debatable. For some its using Ai is a problem by definition, its not even about the result. A few issues: a) Ai is unethically trained on data without respecting the original license, b) using Ai (probably even paying for it) supports Ai companies, which in turn are causing the massive issues in the tech price increases.

Thanks, saves time to not read it.

Your derived situation was made up AFTER the post and our discussion, just to justify your position wanting to be an idiot. It was a free form hypothetical situation without further rules. You yourself imposed the rules on you and others, just so you can be right. And now you start attacking people who do not agree with you. Maybe you are the idiot in the room right now, but you probably feel safe knowing nothing and trying to learn how to carve a stone. No my friend, I’m not an idiot who wants to be an idiot under any circumstances. Idiots don’t learn. Intelligent person learns from mistakes of idiots.

OK then, read on. Let’s say you are an intelligent person with lots of knowledge. Let’s say a score of 150 of intelligent knowledge, a hypothetical metric. But you want to learn something new, so what you do? Off course you go to a fairy and wish you were an idiot / dumb. Now your score is 45. That means you lost all of that, just to try to learn something new and to get a position where everyone is. And because you are an idiot, its really really hard to learn anything, and it takes ages to get a score of 90. If you didn’t wish that, you would be at 150 and maybe you learn a bit and get 160 and you are scratching highest score what is even possible.

Don’t get pissy when people call out your ignorance how to play, willful or otherwise. Accept your defeat.

You come up with a contrived scenario and very specific situation just to justify being an idiot. No. Knowledge is not the same as being intelligent, idiot is not the same as dumb. Its incredible how you guys come up with stories just to justify being the dumbest or only idiot in the room. An idiot means its not able to learn anything. Also why is the focus on learning something so high in these replies here? And who says I’m trapped in this room forever?

An intelligent person can learn from the failures of idiots. That’s why he is intelligent. An idiot can not learn. That’s why he is an idiot.

I don’t think so. A smart person can still learn while being the smartest in the room. People don’t get dumber, just because they are the smartest of all in the room. In fact you might be able to help others, or be the only one who can solve the problem. Then you are the right person in the room.

On the other hand, being dumb or an idiot does not mean you will learn… most likely you will not (that’s why its called an idiot). Smart people can be an asshole or you cannot keep up with them and just be a burden.