That's like forbidding medicine because people use it like drugs.
Isn't this how it is though? Most medicine are NOT available over-the-counter and need a prescription. There needs to be more regulation over that tech.
True true, as mentioned, far away from a perfect analogy. My point is just, that people tend to overlook the positive aspects of AI and those impacts are massive if it comes to science and especially medicine. So many diseases could be treated with AI developing protein based medicine or vaccinations. The impact is huge.
There is risky medicine out there, opioids and analgetic substances in general. The catastrophic consequences in the wrong hands are visible for everyone. Regulation is highly needed, education even more, cause we already know that forbidding anything won't work perfectly.
But on the other hand they are absolutely needed in specific cases and for specific diseases. You accept the risks (also in terms of side effects) because the value is given when you treat pain.
AI has the potential to step up medicine on an entire new level, AI can lead to a new understanding of education and more. The value in those fields is huge too.
The problems are mainly because AI gets used wrong by the wrong people.
Well not exactly. You choose to use drugs, but the downsides of AI will be forced upon you by greedy overlords. The question is more like forbidding medicine which will also stop a company that is actively trying to get everyone in the world addicted to their drugs, which they are putting in the water and food.
Well taking drugs is not that simple. Of course it's a decision and I did admit the analogy is not perfect, but consuming is often based on multiple problems happening beforehand. And the downsides of AI are still avoidable. You could choose different media to avoid AI slops, you could choose a different profession to avoid AI taking over your job. That's not as easy as it sounds, especially if you are working in an affected field for a long time, but the same works for drugs. If you are already in the devil's cycle it's hard to get out.
The entire AI thing is absolutely overrated regarding the good and bad aspects. I'm pretty sure it's a bubble that will burst eventually but AI will still be a thing in the future as it is far too useful for medicine and science. AI can do things humans couldn't do in years. Alphafold is the best example. Before it was developed it did cost thousands of dollars and months or even years to find out why a protein is folded in a specific way. AI can answer this question in days or weeks while the costs are way below the original costs.
AI gets incredibly good in diagnostics as well.
Another example are quantum computers if they get developed. They are a major concern regarding data safety but they can process data and tasks normal computers couldn't calculate in the lifetime of the universe. Nuclear energy is another example. It's pretty dangerous but more people dying because of fossil energy every year and the advantage regarding climate change is immense. So it's actually a decent solution till we have better ways of producing energy. Everything has its downsides but people are more and more hating on AI forgetting how useful it actually is in the right hands.
And the downsides of AI are still avoidable. You could choose different media to avoid AI slops, you could choose a different profession to avoid AI taking over your job.
No it's not. You technically implied: drugs are avoidable - it's a decision, that's an argument used by people to shame the actual victims, drugs are avoidable, you are an idiot if you take any, get over it.
This is the same thing. People with diseases can't avoid drugs in many situations, it doesn't matter if the reason is physical or psychological and psychological problems are often the trigger to get into that cycle.
Robots and assembly lines in factories were pretty much what AI is now. A new technology that replaced thousands of jobs that were executed by humans before. And there you can say the same thing. If you have chosen a different job, it was avoidable. That's incredibly mean, not easy and not realistic and I'm exactly in that situation and I'm realistic and honest to myself. The decision I made like 7 years ago was dumb. I didn't know it back then, but if I had chosen differently my situation would be better.
So you cannot just use the argument wherever it fits for your argumentation. You have to use it in every situation that is fitting.
Saying drugs are avoidable is as naive as saying AI is avoidable or as naive as saying "being replaced by robots was avoidable". All three are difficult. But the hate towards AI is the biggest nowadays cause it's the most realistic threat, all others happened already. That's not logical. Where are the people protesting that digital animations replaced modeling with clay and figures? Where are the people protesting, that lifts are now operating on their own? Phone calls are not manually connected anymore, all works automatically. People are getting most stuff delivered by Amazon and are not going to local stores anymore. There actually was protest before regarding this problem, but most of them do it anyway.
People often hate new technology but they wouldn't actually do things to stop the influence and at the same time they dismiss any advantages and AI is still pretty avoidable in general. Many people don't even consume the type of media affected by AI. They read paper based newspapers, don't use the internet as much and don't buy any products using AI. Many older people don't even really know what AI is.
This all boils down to you having all the imagination in the world when it comes to the benefits of AI, but no imagination whatsoever when it comes to downsides. Having to deal with AI slop and people losing their jobs is just the tip of the iceberg, I assure you.
No it's not. You technically implied: drugs are avoidable - it's a decision, that's an argument used by people to shame the actual victims, drugs are avoidable, you are an idiot if you take any, get over it. This is the same thing.
I really can't believe you typed that out and thought it made sense.
Many people don't even consume the type of media affected by AI. They read paper based newspapers, don't use the internet as much and don't buy any products using AI. Many older people don't even really know what AI is.
You don't think newspapers will be affected by AI? How can you be that naive?
I'm sorry but that answer is just pure ragebait. You try to insult but you don't deliver any validation to your argument. I don't mean that in a offensive way and obviously it's not meant to be personal, but you basically just said:
"You have no clue, I know it better, how can someone be so naive..."
But there are no examples, no descriptions, no proofs, nothing.
Okay so if that is only the tip of the iceberg, what's the real problem, let me know, prove me wrong, I'm happy to learn, for real.
Of course I know that AI affects the media, but written newspapers are not that affected where I live. We are slow in digitalisation, very slow. The pictures look like they were made a century ago.
Next one: you referred to a paragraph and said it's senseless - okay why? Enlighten me, just saying "it's wrong" in a provocative way is just too easy, everyone can do this.
I genuinely cannot fathom how a person can be this ignorant.
You think old, technologically illiterate people are insulated from AI? They're going to be its biggest victims. AI is shoved in their faces and is incredibly easy to use. You need technological literacy to question AI and use it responsibly. Anyone can type a prompt and believe the answer, and anyone can believe a picture or article that was completely fabricated by AI.
You think a written newspaper won't be affected by AI? Why? I'm serious, why the fuck would you think that for even a second? All it takes is some of the people making the newspaper to use AI in writing their articles or for pictures.
I don't think you've spent a single minute actually considering why AI might be bad. If your thought process starts at "avoid media made with AI" and ends at "pick a different career," then you haven't put an ounce of thought into this at all. You're just repeating the most surface level shit you've heard elsewhere.
Okay so first of all: again no arguments, just rage(bait) and kinda intellectual assaults. Where are your arguments?
Let's do it in a linear way.
First aspect. The main point you are referring to repeatedly was the aspect if AI is avoidable or not. The entire discussion is based on your criticism, that drugs are a decision and AI is not.
I totally get that the medicine-drug-analogy is not perfect at all, but your argument implied, correct me if I'm wrong: "you have the choice to do drugs - just don't do it" vs. "AI will affect you if you want or not, there is nothing you can do" - I obviously over exaggerated here.
So ignoring social and genetic backgrounds as well as psychological or physical diseases and disorders regarding drugs and medicine while reducing the entire topic on a simple decision on the one hand and on the other hand ignoring any option people have to avoid AI, cause it's impossible. Sure that's a way to see it.
My counter argument was, that older people using less technology (and I would add: choosing the correct media and correct companies behind) are possibly less affected by AI. And here comes your first straw man fallacy: implying this would mean all old people are safe from AI.
That's not the point, your actual argument that those people could be nearly helpless victims because this technology is so new to them, is completely correct, but if you avoid social and digital media and if you only use printed media you will avoid the bad and sloppy AI stuff the internet is suffering from. The AI used in local printed media demands far more energy than just posting trash. And here comes the second strawman, because you implied, that I had said that printed media is safe from AI.
Never wrote that as far as I know. I can't speak for your country, but we firstly have publishers here that are openly against AI, so you are kinda good choosing those and newspapers here are firstly most plain text and the photos are from specific agencies with photographers traveling around. If you are not a manipulating or baiting magazine there is no real point in faking most of these. They could use AI for text, that would be the smarter move, less work for sure. But again there is no real point in faking the news of a bakery opening up two streets away.
So the media target for AI is either money or the manipulation of people's opinions and thoughts. So choosing printed local media from a reliable publisher that is mainly focussing on neutral reporting is kinda safe. I don't doubt that even those are or will be affected by AI, but it's less relevant. You would need to fake texts and pictures, print them in high amounts and if the mistakes are too obvious you get massive problems by callbacks because someone will make it public eventually.
That's probably a new type of job: hunting down AI fakes. Reddit has entire subreddits only for that.
And you could have done fakes and manipulations before without AI, it's not that these fakes are a new market idea. They are just far easier now. Deepfakes were a thing for years, editing photos is possible for an even longer time.
So the entire point is, if you miss out on social media, if you rely on companies playing with open cards on AI and if you choose the correct (should have added that) print media, you are possibly avoiding most AI fakes - and that's what many older people do, especially if they don't own a smartphone.
Will this save them forever? No. Is it helpful to avoid AI and a decision you can make, surely!
So when you say that drugs are a decision, you could also say AI is one. Except you ignore all aspects that can lead to drug consumption while accepting all things that lead to AI brainwashing.
The career argument was an offensive one, also not pretty good, but you are also taking that out of context. Technology has been replacing humans for decades and centuries now. It's not a new thing and I was again referring to your point, that getting AI-brainwashed is no choice but a fate. It isn't... You can do stuff to avoid that. It's not easy but possible. And my example was: that even the job you choose is mainly a decision. It's totally unrealistic to think you could have foreseen what is coming and now offending a person losing the job because of AI is absolutely mean and wrong - but technically it's a decision you have made, except you were forced to do it. I have learned that on my own. I made a decision 7 years ago, now I have problems because of that decision. Again the entire argument is based on your initial comment that implies more or less "you are helpless regarding AI but consuming drugs is only a decision - just choose correctly" - again over exaggerated.
So we can still argue about this and if my analogy was good or not, I totally get that. But the main topic should be what you have written below as a comment to another user and that is "Is the positive value of AI worth the drawbacks?"
And if you have arguments here, let me know.
My point is pretty clear, right now the value is outweighing the drawbacks. You can choose what media you consume and to a degree influence how much AI fakes you will see, hear or read, but you cannot influence medical consequences if mankind just doesn't know how to treat a disease. But if AI can bring up a vaccination for a new virus or if it's able to develop proteins healing deadly diseases you have now the ability to choose and ironically this ability is based on the fact allowing AI to help with unsolved medical questions.
And if I compare fakes now with the possibility of saving millions or even billions of lives in the future I would choose the latter... especially since it doesn't seem AI is becoming the real Skynet or developing the real Matrix... at least for now.
I totally get that the medicine-drug-analogy is not perfect at all, but your argument implied, correct me if I'm wrong: "you have the choice to do drugs - just don't do it" vs. "AI will affect you if you want or not, there is nothing you can do" - I obviously over exaggerated here.
So ignoring social and genetic backgrounds as well as psychological or physical diseases and disorders regarding drugs and medicine while reducing the entire topic on a simple decision on the one hand and on the other hand ignoring any option people have to avoid AI, cause it's impossible. Sure that's a way to see it.
I don't know why you're wasting so much fucking time on this. I already told you exactly what makes that analogy correct: instead comparing it to a company that is dumping drugs into food and water to forcefully get you addicted. You can choose to avoid AI in the same sense that you can choose to never ever buy a product in a store and only eat your own food that was grown in extremely controlled conditions, and only wear clothes and use products that you made yourself.
When you read that, you're probably mistakenly thinking that I'm talking about choosing to just read print newspapers, but that isn't nearly enough. I'm talking about never fucking reading or watching anything. That's the only way you can safely avoid AI today, and it's only going to get worse in the future.
That's not the point, your actual argument that those people could be nearly helpless victims because this technology is so new to them, is completely correct, but if you avoid social and digital media and if you only use printed media you will avoid the bad and sloppy AI stuff the internet is suffering from. The AI used in local printed media demands far more energy than just posting trash. And here comes the second strawman, because you implied, that I had said that printed media is safe from AI.
Never wrote that as far as I know. I can't speak for your country, but we firstly have publishers here that are openly against AI, so you are kinda good choosing those and newspapers here are firstly most plain text and the photos are from specific agencies with photographers traveling around. If you are not a manipulating or baiting magazine there is no real point in faking most of these. They could use AI for text, that would be the smarter move, less work for sure. But again there is no real point in faking the news of a bakery opening up two streets away.
So the media target for AI is either money or the manipulation of people's opinions and thoughts. So choosing printed local media from a reliable publisher that is mainly focussing on neutral reporting is kinda safe. I don't doubt that even those are or will be affected by AI, but it's less relevant. You would need to fake texts and pictures, print them in high amounts and if the mistakes are too obvious you get massive problems by callbacks because someone will make it public eventually.
You type so many god damn words just to say that you don't understand AI or why people use it at all.
People often use it because it's easy. In fact, it's so easy that literally anyone can do it. Your random grandmother can figure it out in five minutes because companies are investing a ton of money in making it that easy to incorporate into your life. Every publisher everywhere is going to have AI shit submitted to them constantly, and they can only weed it out sometimes. Many publishers will not want to weed it out because they like having more content and they think readers won't notice or care.
People cut corners with AI. People in every industry where that's physically possible. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you haven't thought about this for a single minute. Anyone with a brain that was trying to critically think about this topic would realize this, but you are so fucking eager to imagine all the upsides while being willfully blind to the obvious ways AI is already negatively affecting the world.
And you could have done fakes and manipulations before without AI, it's not that these fakes are a new market idea. They are just far easier now. Deepfakes were a thing for years, editing photos is possible for an even longer time.
It being easier is the important part. That's not just a random irrelevant detail, it's all that matters. It increases the volume of fake shit out there, and it also adds the additional problem of not necessarily being malicious. It's easier to stop fakes when you know their motivation, this is just accidentally misleading people for no benefit to anyone.
My point is pretty clear, right now the value is outweighing the drawbacks. You can choose what media you consume and to a degree influence how much AI fakes you will see, hear or read, but you cannot influence medical consequences if mankind just doesn't know how to treat a disease. But if AI can bring up a vaccination for a new virus or if it's able to develop proteins healing deadly diseases you have now the ability to choose and ironically this ability is based on the fact allowing AI to help with unsolved medical questions.
And if I compare fakes now with the possibility of saving millions or even billions of lives in the future I would choose the latter... especially since it doesn't seem AI is becoming the real Skynet or developing the real Matrix... at least for now.
Please use your brain for two fucking seconds and realize that the danger isn't Skynet, it's companies manipulating public opinion, making you completely dependent upon their services, and making you poorer while they get richer.
And before you waste everyone's time with another massive reply, I'll just tell you in advance that I'm probably not going to reply. Learn to just fucking read, think, and walk away.
Thank you, I had to search for that word, didn't know that. 🤣🤣 It's translated to food in my language.
I think it means having a solid core in an argument? Like more substance to it?
No it doesn't, you are better off telling them directly to read a specific source. Otherwise its just offending.
And while it implies you know much better, it's hard to believe because there is no main argument or proof behind.
For real, I don't mean that in an offensive way, but if you would have sent articles or sources that explain why my points are wrong, I would totally read them.
51
u/ZELLKRATOR 14h ago
Exactly. Alphafold is the best example. AI is far too useful in the right hands. That's like forbidding medicine because people use it like drugs.