• Rose@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    5 hours ago

    This makes about as much sense as calling Linux users “Windows vegans”.

    Choosing to not use AI isn’t some wacky contrarian position, it’s a tame position that can easily be justified. (Don’t want to use AI? Then don’t.) If anything, trying to assert that constantly using AI for everything would be the new normal is the wacky position.

    • Luca@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Not eating animals is not a wacky contrarian position either, and I’m not even vegan

      • innermachine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        So I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here and say that it is. Look at your teeth, humans are omnivores. Cutting out half the diet you evolved to consume is in fact a contriarian position. Not that I have any issues with vegans or vegetarians, just from an anatomical point of view we were designed to eat some meat! I do think calling people who don’t use AI “AI vegans” is absurd though, as diet has absolutely nothing to do with use of AI. Would be more accurate to say their AI fasting if we’re gonna use food related terms.

        • Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          It may be natural to eat animals, but in modern society it is definitely not necessary. I eat some meat, but I respect those who don’t.

        • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          It’s natural to eat animal products, but many humans try to live by ethical standards, not just instincts and traditions. Just because the stronger caveman used to be able to just bash their neighbor’s head in and take their belongings, doesn’t make it acceptable by today’s standards. So while I do agree with your initial assessment, considering that we have the option nowadays to have a healthy diet based on non animal products, I would also agree with the previous comment saying that it is not wacky contrarian to eat / live vegan.

  • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The better term would be “LLM gobbling fuckheads” for those who use that stuff and believe it has anything to do with “AI”

  • harmsy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I played around on an AI image generating website for a while. Eventually got bored with it.

  • udon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    “refuse” lol as if there were a general requirement to use this shit

  • Alfredolin@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 hours ago

    No an Image generation is not ten times the impact pf a Google search, a ChatGPT query is. Image generation is probably a lot more.

  • Waldschrat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Can we please stop coming up with words that describe that we do not do a thing like it is not normal? Just like having to call yourself an atheist because you do not believe. You should call yourself a theist if you believe, because you actively do it. Call yourself what you are, do, or see fit, not what you are not.

  • Allemaniac@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 hours ago

    “AI vegans”? I knew guardian was already bought by tech bros, but wtf is that phrasing lmao I dont use AI either, simply because it is wrong more often than not and I am still capable of googling myself, but being cautious equals to being vegan in tech bro eyes?

      • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        “AI” or LLMs are great for people without skill. They love them and get quite aggressive when you insult the machine.

        • Electricd@lemmybefree.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          I love the arguments: none

          AI is broader than LLMs

          When you’re attacking an entire field with no arguments, and saying it’s shit based on your feelings rather than facts, expect people to disagree

          • Norah (pup/it/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            59 minutes ago

            It’s not really about feelings? It’s provably, demonstrably wrong a bunch of the time. It’s pathologically incapable of saying “I don’t know this”. Also you’re nitpicking, they may have conflated LLMs with AI but so is the article and you clearly knew what OC was talking about.

      • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Not if you use “AI” as the abbreviation of “artificial intelligence”.
        If you use AI as meaning “what chatGPT & co are” then it’s a trueism.

        • Zacryon@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          But yes. Exactly in the use of “Artificial Intelligence”.

          Artificial Intelligence is a wide field, consisting of a plethora of methods. LLMs like ChatGPT are part of this wide field, as per definition how researchers are describing the field.

          The “intelligence” part is an issue though if taken literal, since we have no clear definition of what “intelligence” even is. Neither for human / natural intelligence, nor for artificial. But that’s how the field was labled. We have created a category for a bunch of methods, models and algorithms and sticked “AI” onto it. Therefore I stand by what I have said before:

          It is AI.

          Due to the lack of a clear definition for “intelligence” I would coarsely outline AI as: mimicking natural thinking, problem solving and decision processes without necessarily being identical. (This makes it difficult to distinguish it from plain calculators though, so a better definition is required.) So if we have a model that is able to distinguish cat pictures from non-cat pictures, that’s AI. And if we have “autocorrect on steroids” (credit to Dirk Hohndel) like ChatGPT, that matches the text comprehension skills of 15 year olds (just an example), then this too is AI.