You are, you’re opposed to automation technology, that’s literally Luddism, which is a form of anti-communism. What positions are you even trying to defend? “I’m not anti-technology, I just oppose automation!” Like, the overwhelming majority of new technology is developed to increase labor productivity, which means to increase the degree in which tasks are automated. To oppose automation is to oppose the overwhelming majority of new technologies.
AI is just one of many automation technologies. You realize USPS is largely ran on AI? Automation is a major backbone to our economy. But, oooh, there’s no “soul” in OCR software or something so we have to go backwards and bring back whole warehouses of people who decipher the text on letters and put them into a computer and can’t have it done automatically because muh AI scawy. We have gotta burn all the huge breakthroughs in medical science such as with protein folding and in material science that were discovered through AI because muh AI scawy and lacks a soul or something. We have to abandon research in nuclear fusion technology because all recent breakthroughs in plasma stabilization have come through AI automation.
Do you know what it means to develop the productive forces? It means to improve productivity, which requires continually improving automation and semi-automation (by that I mean, tools that partially automate things but may still require some supervision). We will never reach a higher stage communist society without automation and semi-automation, i.e. without constantly improving labor productivity.
I hope you never in your life use the speech recognition feature on your phone, like writing text messages by speaking it. I hope you never in your life use a translation app like Google Translate or DeepL. Otherwise you are a hypocrite for using the evil soulless scawy AIs.
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse someone of Luddism, let alone anti-communism, just because they have reservations or skepticism about a new technology, especially one that is already being misused by capitalist interests to harm workers. There also seems to be some disagreement about the terminology, in sense that some of the things you call “AI” someone else might not see as such. So first everyone needs to agree on what “AI” even is.
Of course in a general sense automation has immense potential to benefit us as a species. The question is whether certain aspects of what is now called “AI” really do constitute useful automation, particularly when it comes to generating large amounts of what is essentially garbage content. I think we should be careful making pronouncements this early.
My view is that we need to wait and see how this technology will develop and what impact it will really have on society in the long term. What i am sure about though is that this technology is here to stay whether we like it or not.
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse someone of Luddism, let alone anti-communism, just because they have reservations or skepticism about a new technology,
I appreciate you saying this. Very strange to see someone immediately attack someone else just because I don’t share their enthusiasm
AI is largely used interchangeably with an ANN. Sometimes companies might use it even more broadly than ANN for marketing purposes, but if you actually go take a class in AI at university you will be learning about ANNs.
We used ANNs for research back in my uni days long before the “AI” hype began. If that is all that is meant by “AI” then that is a category so broad as to make any discussion of whether it’s good or bad virtually pointless, because there are so many different shapes that an ANN can take and so many functions they can fulfil that nobody actually knows what it is actually, concretely, that is being debated.
That’s… the point. That’s like, literally the entire point I am making. It makes no sense to be “anti-AI” because AI is such an incredibly broad spectrum of technology. It’s fine to be critical of specific applications of AI (indeed, there are many examples of AI making things worse or even being used for evil) but being “anti-AI” in an absolute sense is an incredibly dogmatic and entirely unreasonable position and I am utterly appalled so many people here are unironically trying to defend it.
Exactly. A lot of the points that pcalau12imakes, muddies that distinction in favor of LLMs and gives credit to LLM development when it is in fact a different field that is responsible for those advances
I won’t claim authority on the subject but you are the first person to make this claim, that I have ever read. I do not think this is a commonly accepted viewpoint. At least until a couple years ago it seemed to me that there was an attempt to avoid calling Neural Networks artificial intelligence because of the previous AI hype cycles and winters that occurred
Sure, but no one uses the term ANN. It is basically useless and not even that precise. I agree that calling LLMs AI is pretty misleading. But it is better to call them what they are. If you want umbrella term for LLMs, computer vision, reinforcement learning etc. I would go with machine learning instead of ANN. Even in universities, you won’t learn much about ANN (as in the mathematic model) aside from like first lecture.
There are many approaches in machine learning and some, not all of them, use ANN.
No one uses the term ANN because most people don’t know what it means so it’s not good for marketing, so AI is used in its place, but it refers to the same kind of technology. Machine learning isn’t a good replacement precisely for the reason you say: it is broad and includes things that aren’t ANNs and would not fit under what is generally understood to be AI. If a person bought a piece of tech that said it is powered by AI and used something like a k-means clustering algorithm they probably would feel a bit ripped off and would expect something with an actual AI model that does intelligent processing, they would expect something that could take advantage of an AI accelerator, which is the consumer-end name for a piece of hardware that does AI inferencing, which is specific to ANNs!
It is just undeniably true that when “AI” is used in the overwhelming majority of articles, papers, etc these days people very specifically have ANNs in mind. If you deny this you are just denying factual reality, you are denying that 2+2=4 and that point you are being too unreasonable to carry on the discussion with. I am going to tap out of this discussion as none of y’all are being reasonable in the slightest and stretching to the moon to look for “gotchas” to justify a reactionary anti-technology stance and refusing to listen to someone with background in this field.
The AI Derangement Syndrome mind virus seems to impervious to reason and people will come up with any excuse to justify it. I refuse to engage with this further. Stop replying to me, I do not care to engage further. I do not want to argue with 4 people at once trying to pull out excuses to why it’s somehow evil for China to invest in technology because muh AI scawy. If you are willing to be educated to understand why this technology is important, educated from someone who has a computer science degree and works in this field, then I can teach you, but none of you want to learn and just want to play word games to justify your anti-AI hysteria and I have no interest in engaging with this.
I think it’s far more telling how you conflate automation with Large Language Models (colloquially being called AI even though it’s not).
Much of those technologies that you cite as examples and call AI (OCR, computer vision), I don’t understand why you do that. Those technologies existed long before LLMs.
I find the protein folding example especially perplexing since protein folding simulation existed far, far before LLMs and machine learning, and it is ahistorical to claim those as being AI innovations.
I don’t agree with your AI boosterism, but I think what is more perplexing is how misinformed it is.
They are all artificial neural networks, which is what “AI” typically means… bro you literally know nothing about this topic. No investigation, no right to speak. You need to stop talking.
The “intelligence” part in artificial intelligence comes from the fact that these algorithms are very loosely based on how what makes biological organisms intelligent: their brains. Artificial neural networks (as they are more accurately called) use large numbers of virtual neurons with different strengths of neural connections between the neurons sometimes called their “weights” and the total number of different connections is referred to as the “parameter” count of the model.
You do a bit of calculus and you can figure out how to take training data to adjust sometimes billions of parameters in an ANN in order to make the artificial neural network spit out more accurate answers given the training data. You repeat this process many times with a lot of data and eventually the ANN will fine-tune itself to find patterns in the dataset and start spitting out better and better answers.
The benefit of ANNs is precisely that they effectively train themselves. Imagine writing a bunch of if/else statements to convert text in an image to written text. It would be impossible because there’s quadrillions of different ways an image can look and have the same text, if it’s taken at a different distance, different writing style, under different lighting conditions, etc. You would be coding for forever and would never solve it. But if you feed an ANN millions of pictures of written text alongside images of that written text under all these different conditions, you can do a bit of calculus with a lot of computational power and what you will spit out is the fine-tuned weights for an ANN that if you pass in a new image it will be able to identify the text.
Technology is fascinating but sadly you seem to have no interest in it and I doubt you will even read this. I only write this for others who may care.
Also, yes, computer vision is also based on ANNs. I have my own AI server with a couple GPUs and one of the tasks I use it for is optical character recognition which requires you to load the AI model onto the GPU for it to run quickly, otherwise it is rather slow (I am using paddleocr). If the image I am doing OCR on is in a different language then I can also pass it through Qwen to translate it. If you ever setup a security system in your home, these often will use AI for object recognition. It’s very inefficient to record footage all the time, but many modern security systems you can tell them to record footage only when they see a moving person, or a moving car. Yes, this is done with AI, you can even buy an “AI hat” for the Raspberry Pi that was developed specifically for computer vision and object identification.
Literally if you ever take a course in AI, one of the first things you learn is OCR, because it’s one of the earliest examples of AI being useful. There is literally a famous dataset with its own Wikipedia page called MNIST because so many people who learn how AI work often first learn to build a simple one that can do OCR on handwritten digits that they are tasked with training on the MNIST dataset.
I’m also surprised your hatred is towards large language models specifically, when usually people who hate AI despise text-to-image models. You do know that “AI art” generators are not LLMs, yes? I find it odd someone would despise LLMs, which actually have a lot of utility like language translation and summarization, over TTIMs, which don’t have much utility at all besides spitting out (sometimes…) pretty pictures. Although, I assume you don’t even know the difference since you seem to not know much about this subject, and I doubt you will even read this far anyways.
bro you literally know nothing about this topic. No investigation, no right to speak. You need to stop talking.
You are toxic, as well as being incredibly arrogant. A true example of Dunning-Krueger effect. If you want to have a tantrum then by all means do so, but don’t pretend that you are on some sort of high ground when you make your pronouncements.
Every conversation you have had with me, you project opinions that I do not have (maxism vs anarchism, calling me a luddite, etc) and construct strawmen arguments that I did not make
I don’t see how one can reconcile being anti-technology with being a Marxist. You’d be better served in an anarchist community.
It’s very silly to say that because I don’t like LLMs, that I’m anti-technology.
You are, you’re opposed to automation technology, that’s literally Luddism, which is a form of anti-communism. What positions are you even trying to defend? “I’m not anti-technology, I just oppose automation!” Like, the overwhelming majority of new technology is developed to increase labor productivity, which means to increase the degree in which tasks are automated. To oppose automation is to oppose the overwhelming majority of new technologies.
AI is just one of many automation technologies. You realize USPS is largely ran on AI? Automation is a major backbone to our economy. But, oooh, there’s no “soul” in OCR software or something so we have to go backwards and bring back whole warehouses of people who decipher the text on letters and put them into a computer and can’t have it done automatically because muh AI scawy. We have gotta burn all the huge breakthroughs in medical science such as with protein folding and in material science that were discovered through AI because muh AI scawy and lacks a soul or something. We have to abandon research in nuclear fusion technology because all recent breakthroughs in plasma stabilization have come through AI automation.
Do you know what it means to develop the productive forces? It means to improve productivity, which requires continually improving automation and semi-automation (by that I mean, tools that partially automate things but may still require some supervision). We will never reach a higher stage communist society without automation and semi-automation, i.e. without constantly improving labor productivity.
I hope you never in your life use the speech recognition feature on your phone, like writing text messages by speaking it. I hope you never in your life use a translation app like Google Translate or DeepL. Otherwise you are a hypocrite for using the evil soulless scawy AIs.
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse someone of Luddism, let alone anti-communism, just because they have reservations or skepticism about a new technology, especially one that is already being misused by capitalist interests to harm workers. There also seems to be some disagreement about the terminology, in sense that some of the things you call “AI” someone else might not see as such. So first everyone needs to agree on what “AI” even is.
Of course in a general sense automation has immense potential to benefit us as a species. The question is whether certain aspects of what is now called “AI” really do constitute useful automation, particularly when it comes to generating large amounts of what is essentially garbage content. I think we should be careful making pronouncements this early.
My view is that we need to wait and see how this technology will develop and what impact it will really have on society in the long term. What i am sure about though is that this technology is here to stay whether we like it or not.
I appreciate you saying this. Very strange to see someone immediately attack someone else just because I don’t share their enthusiasm
AI is largely used interchangeably with an ANN. Sometimes companies might use it even more broadly than ANN for marketing purposes, but if you actually go take a class in AI at university you will be learning about ANNs.
We used ANNs for research back in my uni days long before the “AI” hype began. If that is all that is meant by “AI” then that is a category so broad as to make any discussion of whether it’s good or bad virtually pointless, because there are so many different shapes that an ANN can take and so many functions they can fulfil that nobody actually knows what it is actually, concretely, that is being debated.
That’s… the point. That’s like, literally the entire point I am making. It makes no sense to be “anti-AI” because AI is such an incredibly broad spectrum of technology. It’s fine to be critical of specific applications of AI (indeed, there are many examples of AI making things worse or even being used for evil) but being “anti-AI” in an absolute sense is an incredibly dogmatic and entirely unreasonable position and I am utterly appalled so many people here are unironically trying to defend it.
Exactly. A lot of the points that
pcalau12imakes, muddies that distinction in favor of LLMs and gives credit to LLM development when it is in fact a different field that is responsible for those advancesI won’t claim authority on the subject but you are the first person to make this claim, that I have ever read. I do not think this is a commonly accepted viewpoint. At least until a couple years ago it seemed to me that there was an attempt to avoid calling Neural Networks artificial intelligence because of the previous AI hype cycles and winters that occurred
Sure, but no one uses the term ANN. It is basically useless and not even that precise. I agree that calling LLMs AI is pretty misleading. But it is better to call them what they are. If you want umbrella term for LLMs, computer vision, reinforcement learning etc. I would go with machine learning instead of ANN. Even in universities, you won’t learn much about ANN (as in the mathematic model) aside from like first lecture.
There are many approaches in machine learning and some, not all of them, use ANN.
No one uses the term ANN because most people don’t know what it means so it’s not good for marketing, so AI is used in its place, but it refers to the same kind of technology. Machine learning isn’t a good replacement precisely for the reason you say: it is broad and includes things that aren’t ANNs and would not fit under what is generally understood to be AI. If a person bought a piece of tech that said it is powered by AI and used something like a k-means clustering algorithm they probably would feel a bit ripped off and would expect something with an actual AI model that does intelligent processing, they would expect something that could take advantage of an AI accelerator, which is the consumer-end name for a piece of hardware that does AI inferencing, which is specific to ANNs!
It is just undeniably true that when “AI” is used in the overwhelming majority of articles, papers, etc these days people very specifically have ANNs in mind. If you deny this you are just denying factual reality, you are denying that 2+2=4 and that point you are being too unreasonable to carry on the discussion with. I am going to tap out of this discussion as none of y’all are being reasonable in the slightest and stretching to the moon to look for “gotchas” to justify a reactionary anti-technology stance and refusing to listen to someone with background in this field.
The AI Derangement Syndrome mind virus seems to impervious to reason and people will come up with any excuse to justify it. I refuse to engage with this further. Stop replying to me, I do not care to engage further. I do not want to argue with 4 people at once trying to pull out excuses to why it’s somehow evil for China to invest in technology because muh AI scawy. If you are willing to be educated to understand why this technology is important, educated from someone who has a computer science degree and works in this field, then I can teach you, but none of you want to learn and just want to play word games to justify your anti-AI hysteria and I have no interest in engaging with this.
I think it’s far more telling how you conflate automation with Large Language Models (colloquially being called AI even though it’s not).
Much of those technologies that you cite as examples and call AI (OCR, computer vision), I don’t understand why you do that. Those technologies existed long before LLMs.
I find the protein folding example especially perplexing since protein folding simulation existed far, far before LLMs and machine learning, and it is ahistorical to claim those as being AI innovations.
I don’t agree with your AI boosterism, but I think what is more perplexing is how misinformed it is.
They are all artificial neural networks, which is what “AI” typically means… bro you literally know nothing about this topic. No investigation, no right to speak. You need to stop talking.
The “intelligence” part in artificial intelligence comes from the fact that these algorithms are very loosely based on how what makes biological organisms intelligent: their brains. Artificial neural networks (as they are more accurately called) use large numbers of virtual neurons with different strengths of neural connections between the neurons sometimes called their “weights” and the total number of different connections is referred to as the “parameter” count of the model.
You do a bit of calculus and you can figure out how to take training data to adjust sometimes billions of parameters in an ANN in order to make the artificial neural network spit out more accurate answers given the training data. You repeat this process many times with a lot of data and eventually the ANN will fine-tune itself to find patterns in the dataset and start spitting out better and better answers.
The benefit of ANNs is precisely that they effectively train themselves. Imagine writing a bunch of if/else statements to convert text in an image to written text. It would be impossible because there’s quadrillions of different ways an image can look and have the same text, if it’s taken at a different distance, different writing style, under different lighting conditions, etc. You would be coding for forever and would never solve it. But if you feed an ANN millions of pictures of written text alongside images of that written text under all these different conditions, you can do a bit of calculus with a lot of computational power and what you will spit out is the fine-tuned weights for an ANN that if you pass in a new image it will be able to identify the text.
Technology is fascinating but sadly you seem to have no interest in it and I doubt you will even read this. I only write this for others who may care.
Also, yes, computer vision is also based on ANNs. I have my own AI server with a couple GPUs and one of the tasks I use it for is optical character recognition which requires you to load the AI model onto the GPU for it to run quickly, otherwise it is rather slow (I am using paddleocr). If the image I am doing OCR on is in a different language then I can also pass it through Qwen to translate it. If you ever setup a security system in your home, these often will use AI for object recognition. It’s very inefficient to record footage all the time, but many modern security systems you can tell them to record footage only when they see a moving person, or a moving car. Yes, this is done with AI, you can even buy an “AI hat” for the Raspberry Pi that was developed specifically for computer vision and object identification.
Literally if you ever take a course in AI, one of the first things you learn is OCR, because it’s one of the earliest examples of AI being useful. There is literally a famous dataset with its own Wikipedia page called MNIST because so many people who learn how AI work often first learn to build a simple one that can do OCR on handwritten digits that they are tasked with training on the MNIST dataset.
I’m also surprised your hatred is towards large language models specifically, when usually people who hate AI despise text-to-image models. You do know that “AI art” generators are not LLMs, yes? I find it odd someone would despise LLMs, which actually have a lot of utility like language translation and summarization, over TTIMs, which don’t have much utility at all besides spitting out (sometimes…) pretty pictures. Although, I assume you don’t even know the difference since you seem to not know much about this subject, and I doubt you will even read this far anyways.
You are toxic, as well as being incredibly arrogant. A true example of Dunning-Krueger effect. If you want to have a tantrum then by all means do so, but don’t pretend that you are on some sort of high ground when you make your pronouncements.
Every conversation you have had with me, you project opinions that I do not have (maxism vs anarchism, calling me a luddite, etc) and construct strawmen arguments that I did not make
Do some self crit
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2: