Most people's views on AI don't make sense/are contradictory

19 days ago by httperrorcode to c/unpopularopinion

Epistemic status: been thinking about this a contradiction I've seen in some of my friends views on AI and think its likely that a lot of people think in this way, especially in communities that really don't like it (eg. most of Lemmy). I know a ton of math and read/work a lot on AI theory+mech interp+safety, so I think I have a pretty strong understanding of the underlying mechanics. I'm fairly confident on the general ideas in this post, but as I explain at the end: a very nuanced understanding involves holding many of these otherwise contradictory viewpoints as true. Writing this because I genuinely want those against AI to have an easier time convincing people.

(for this AI=LLM)

It is not reasonable to think both that

AIs are going to be forever incompetent or
AIs cannot create new things (excluding creative works) or
AIs cannot do very simple tasks

and

AI will replace my job or
AI will bring mass surveillance or
AI can produce deepfakes that are 100% convincing or
AI can be superpersuasive, manipulative (can cause AI psychosis)

(a lot of popular articles on AI fall into one of the above categories, and are often targeted towards the same people)

On another note, I have yet to hear a person against datacenters to give me a good reply to the question "Isn't the water just recycled back into the system?", and in fact they're usually uncertain why the datacenters need the water in the first place. I'm not some accelerationist and I don't think we need to cover the globe in datacenters, but those strongly against AI should have more concrete views than AI = bad, and then be able to back them up without having to do a search for sources, just from memory.

And yes there are exceptions to this in which holding both views make sense but this requires a lot more nuance but unless you are interested in this, that extra info probably would just clutter up your worldview.

Steve 10 points 19 days ago

Isn't the water just recycled back into the system?

Not localy. They use evaporative cooling. The water goes into the atmosphere. Eventually it'll rain down someplace, maybe someplace useful, maybe not.

save

path: 0 24085723, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 2

hendrik 5 points 19 days ago

Yes. Evaporated water is definitely removed from the region. So you'll get issues with the groundwater table. Or with how much water is left in the river for other use. Like for the farmers who use it to grow crops. Or the local residents who'd like to drink it, or flush it down their toilets... Some of it is now gone and removed from the local water supply. And you likely don't want to wait for the next rain season to flush down your poo... And the crops will die in the meantime, as well.

And even if it's not evaporated, you might end up with a lukewarm river. Which isn't great for the fish or pretty much any life which used to be there before. Not only because of temperature directly, but also because warmer water can hold less oxygen...

Furthermore your river-heating will probably be powered by the least efficient / dirtiest natural gas power plant. Because those are cheaper and faster to build. That has an effect on pollution in the region as well. Just look at what Musk is doing.

save

path: 0 24085723 24088250, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

BlackLaZoR 2 points 8 days ago

So globally this is correct, but in some regions water is scarce resource - additional consumption by data center can increase the prices if given region has limited production

save

path: 0 24085723 24265423, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

radix 7 points 19 days ago

It is reasonable to believe A) AIs are a poor substitute for a human at most jobs, and B) company management is still going to replace people in search of short-term profits, even at the expense of long-term stability.

Those two things are not contradictory.

Second, "AIs cannot create new, original things" is not the opposite of "AI can produce deepfakes". That would be like saying every shuffle of a deck of cards is functionally unique (true), therefore I invented a new card game (false).

save

path: 0 24086245, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 1

httperrorcode -2 points 19 days ago

short-term profits

if 'AIs are a poor substitute for a human at most jobs', then even this wouldnt work. disregarding long term effects, AI must be able to do jobs to a degree for this to happen

'create new original things' is subjective, but people push it to an extreme. it does not need to be the opposite of 'ai can produce deepfakes' to be included. example of new original thing: https://openai.com/...

save

path: 0 24086245 24088913, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0

Meat_Of_Nan 5 points 19 days ago

save

path: 0 24088742, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 2

httperrorcode 4 points 19 days ago

thanks for writing this

yeah this is what I meant by nuance, I just dislike when people have mostly-contradictory viewpoints that overlap in the sole fact that they believe 'AI=bad'. for example I've heard the same people irl both say things that show they believe 'AIs cannot do very simple tasks' and 'AI can be superpersuasive, manipulative'

save

path: 0 24088742 24088965, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

Meat_Of_Nan 5 points 18 days ago

save

path: 0 24088742 24088965 24089696, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

Signtist 5 points 19 days ago

I don't know enough to be sure that AI can't be useful for something, or that data centers are definitely bad for the environment. I certainly think they are, but I could be wrong. I don't hate them for that probable but unconfirmed notion, I hate them because the corrupt system is pushing them hard, simple as that.

You will never know enough about the world to identify every scam and trick that comes your way for what it is, but you can often identify clear scammers and tricksters, and when you do, you should immediately refuse anything related to them out of an abundance of caution. I'd rather turn down a good idea from a bad person than fall for another trick just because I couldn't specifically prove how and why it's a trick. If the idea is good, it'll come around again from someone more trustworthy than a tech billionaire, and they'll be able to properly explain why it's good.

As far as I'm concerned, everything that anyone worth over $10 million says, does, or creates is at least partially evil. It's better to assume that than waste time splitting hairs as the world burns due to their actions.

save

path: 0 24085887, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

BlackLaZoR 1 point 8 days ago

One thing AI can do is to produce lot of content at very low cost - this allows them to reach very large number of targets including some that are susceptible to Ai persuasion. So the argument about simultaneously bad quality and Ai psychosis can hold in the context of large, diverse group of people.

save

path: 0 24265405, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0