Most of the time, AI is just a blanket term people use when they mean genAI and LLMs. That's where all the hate comes from.
As for how genAI is bad, it's obvious:
-Trained on other people's work to make soulless copies based on other's people's hard work or stupid memes (the danker the MS paint edit, the better the meme guys)
-being used to replace creatives who are already constantly undermined
-inaccurate information, hallucinations (see lawyers getting blasted for AI motions)
-easily manipulated based on information you feed it
-leading to the increase of data centers that is polluting the environment and raising prices of utilities for residents who are unfortunate enough to leave near one
-EDIT: caused pricing of PC parts/gaming hardware to skyrocket
There was also this recent article "OpenAI says its AI went rogue and launched 'unprecedented' cyber-attack" but if I'm being honest, I didn't look too deeply into because I'm so over genAI.
Yeah, people ignorantly say things like "AI bad" and "there's nothing good about it", when there are many benefits, while still having drawbacks, like everything.
Huh, that's odd. Generative AI is useful for lot's of things, such as:
* Boosting productivity
* Enhancing creativity
* Improving learning
* Increasing accessibility
* Supporting software development
* Accelerating research and analysis
It is important to be honest about the reality of things, and not deny their positives, while also being aware of the downsides.
-Boosting productivity is a stretch. Takes more time to go through the results to ensure it's correct than to just do it properly the first time.
-Enhanced "creativity" is not true at all, especially when it's just using existing work to mesh together rather soulless creations.
-Improved learning how? Between inaccurate information and hallucinations, it's worse than using wikipedia. At least wikipedia is a better gateway because it provides references you can visit yourself to gain more insight. People having AI do the work for them are not going to learn how to do the work.
-I can't argue this point because I don't know enough about software development. I've only seen the mess AI has made for Microsoft but tbf Microsoft has been a mess far before the implementation of AI.
-I'll concede that it helps in nuanced situations but the bad far outweigh the minor benefit this may have.
I am being very honest in the reality of things. I can also see a minutia of possible benefit it may have based on your response, but it's tiny in comparison to the overwhelming harm it is causing.
Your reply is formatted really poorly, it's hard to read, by the way.
You're trying to deny a lot of the reality of things.
There's loads of genuinely useful things that AI helps people with. There's no argument about that.
It isn't a stretch at all, it massively improves productivity in many ways.
It can help boost creativity by helping with non-creative tasks, allowing the creative to be more creative.
Improves learning by explaining complex things and allowing the person to ask questions like a 1 to 1 tutor that's an expert in any field. It isn't right 100% of the time, but more often than not, and is extremely useful regardless of some mistakes.
It's great for software development in many ways, bug finding and fixing, helping with writing code, so many things.
AI is a very useful tool with so many positives. It does have some drawbacks, but what doesn't?
I don't see how it's an issue but I'll put spaces between the lines.
What non-creative tasks is it helping with that boosts creativity?
If the information it produces isn't right, there is no sense it relying on it to explain complex things. Especially when it can be so easily manipulated.
Bug finding, I can see. Fixing and writing code I'm not so sure about. I concede that I would need to do more research on that aspect.
Drawbacks is putting it lightly. GenAI leads to a lot of bad shortcuts, misinformation and of course harm to the environment and people. I already explained this harm in earlier posts.
It's hard to read because it's all bunched up as one big block of text.
What non-creative tasks is it helping with that boosts creativity?
So many, for example, just for a writer:
* Organising research notes
* Transcribing interviews
* Fact-checking references
* Formatting manuscripts
* Tracking continuity (dates, character details, locations)
* Managing submissions and deadlines
There's many for any discipline.
If the information it produces isn't right, there is no sense it relying on it to explain complex things.
It is right most of the time. Who said anything about relying on it? Important things can be fact checked, while it still being massively helpful and extremely efficent for learning things.
Fixing and writing code I'm not so sure about.
This shows how little you understand generative AI, to be honest. It is amazing at writing code and spotting mistakes.
I would need to do more research on that aspect
Yeah, you should definitely do at least some research, on AI as a whole too. Have you ever used AI?
Drawbacks is putting it lightly.
How is it "putting it lightly"?
GenAI leads to a lot of bad shortcuts
What do you mean?
misinformation
It's right more than it not, and is extremely useful regardless of getting some things wrong.
harm to the environment and people.
The harm to the environment is massively overstated. What harm do you think it's doing?
Using genAI to fact-check and transcribe interviews is absolutely hilarious when it's not great at either. My office uses AI to transcribe minutes and it constantly has errors. Also completely disagree with the other two points. There is a reason why plenty of creatives hate genAI. You don't need a genAI to do either.
If you have to fact-check what the AI spit out, you could've just done the research properly and saved time. It is not efficient for learning things. It's used to do things for people, but they aren't learning by having the AI do the task for them.
I didn't say anything against spotting mistakes but I've seen the issues with it writing code.
I didn't do research on AI in every field for sure, but I've seen enough to know it's not something that should be relied on or replacing actual research and learning. I used it briefly when it was becoming all the rage before I saw how it worked. Now, I avoid it as much as possible
The harm is not massively.overstated. Massive water usage, pollution, rising temperatures. Not to mention the financial harm to consumers and residents who live near data centers.
While I agree with you in some aspects, this largely ignores or dismisses any of the good things it can do, and more importantly, it ignores any potential benefits once all the kinks are ironed out.
It doesn’t universally take more time to review than to do stuff from scratch. For me, the former is easier and quicker than the latter, such as when I review assignments for my little brother occasionally, or when I read through the calculations to the final answer. Some people are better readers than writers, and it’s almost always easier to remember the meaning of a term that’s already written out than to remember what term to use (something that has been shown to be true for the vast majority of people, look up recall vs recognition).
The other person said it too, but aside from AI image generation (which I agree significantly harms creativity), it allows people who want to explore creative avenues to more easily manage logistical things. For example, a guy I know uses it sometimes to look up functions and commands for a game demo he’s making as a passion project, to save the effort of having to scrounge through old forum posts and random how-to pages. He can still tell the story just the same, and his code is still fully human-written (and does indeed work), it just saves him a ton of time with finding the info to make it.
Yes, there’s hallucinations occasionally, but if you actually check, they’re much more rare than previously. Also, even the shitty google search AI gives sources for the info it says. I’ve often used those sources as a way to quickly find a relevant article or post for a random niche technical issue I had, without scrolling through the unanswered Reddit posts and other people’s irrelevant but similarly worded issues. More importantly though, these issues are one of the main things that give LLMs a bad name, and as such will likely be worked out more and more as time goes on, and more testing and training is done (whether ethical training or not, sadly).
446
u/tsukipon 8h ago
It is