What is an “extremist view” in this context? Kill sam Altman? Lmao

Welcome to the world of being an activist buddy. Vegans are doing it for a living being with consciousness. Your cause is just too, imo, but just like the vegan who feels motivated and justified in bringing up their views because, to them, it’s a matter of life and death you will be belittled and mocked by those who either genuinely disagree or who do recognize the issues you describe but do not have the courage or self control to change

Start with speaking when it’s relevant. Note that this will not always win you fans. I recently spoke to my physician on this issue, who asked for consent for LLM transcription of audio session notes and automatic summarization. I am not morally opposed to such a thing for health care providers but I had many questions: how are records transmitted, stored, destroyed, does the model use any data fed into it or resultant summaries for seeding/reinforcement learning/refinement/updating internal embeddings/continual learning (this point is key bc the language I’ve seen about this shifts a lot, but basically do they feed your data back into the model to refine it further or do they have separate training and production models that allow for one to be “sanitary”), does the AI model come from the EMR provider (often Epic) or a 3rd party and if so is there a BAA, etc

In my case my provider could answer exactly 0 (zero) of these so I refused consent and am actively monitoring to ensure they are continuing to not use it at subsequent appointments. They are a professional so they’ve remained professional but it’s created some tension. I get it; I work in healthcare myself and I’ve seen these tools demoed and have colleagues that use them. They save a fairly substantial amount of time and in some cases they even guarantee against insurance clawbacks, which is a tremendous security advantage for a healthcare provider. But you gotta know what you’re doing and even then you gotta accept that some people simply will be against it on principle, thems the breaks

“it looks like shit from a butt and sounds like shit from a butt, and if I wanted to look at a shit from a butt, I would do that for free”

My goto is basically since I have to strictly verify all the information/data AI gives me, it’s faster for me to just produce this information myself. It’s what they literally pay me for.

You are an AI vegan though. Why try not to sound like one?

If it’s a decision you make out of conviction and value it is 100% like veganism so I would say embrace it

Live your truth and people will follow. Or not and that’s ok too

i don´t necessarily think sources are needed.

people don´t really care: if an aquaintance asks you you can just tell them it´s not your thing. if an employer asks you, you lose either way. the deranged rants are reserved for close friends :) But if you need some evidence: Look into the environmental consequences (fire up those coalmines for LLM prompts), the several studies that suggest only 60% of all answers are factual, the MIT study that shows how the brain atrophies from using AI and the phenomenon called “ai psychosis”

“Its not my cup of tea”.

Youre over thinking this

Is this a work requirement? If not, who cares.

I tried AI a few times over the last few years, and sometimes I don’t ignore the Gemini results from a search when I’m tired or I’m struggling to get good results.

Almost every time I’ve done either, helpful looking hallucinations wasted my time and made my attempt to find a solution to a technical problem less efficient. I will give specific examples, often unprompted.

I also point to a graph of my electric bill.

I also describe the logon script that a colleague (with no coding experience) asked for help with. He’d used AI to generate what he had to show me and was looking for help getting it to work. Variables declared and never used. Variables storing relevant information but different, similarly named variables used to retrieve the information.

Your question is too vague to give any practical advice. I guess my advice is don’t be so vague? There are 100s of subjects within the umbrella term of AI (you’re actually talking about tokenized data inferred by LLMs but I digress). A healthy distrust around centralization of all the things is an honest conversation between adults. Using these various LLMs to remove tedious blockers to one’s work is perfectly acceptable.

Now if you’re coming at this from an envrionmental angle, then have that conversation with your people just as honestly as the centralization conversation. If you’re in a position wherein people hang on your advice, being diplomatic for self-preservation reasons is the worst thing you can do.

You don’t need artificial intelligence. We already have intelligence at home.

Personally it’s because the harder something is pushed to me by large corporations, the more skeptical I am to begin with.

It is your stance, you don’t have to compulsively change other people’s minds, let them live their lives and you live how you want. For people that are wanting to listen to you, you can tell them how you feel about AI (or perhaps specifically AI chatbots) in both subjective and objective terms. If you want to prepare research and talking points, I think the most effective thing is to have a couple examples such as the Google AI box putting out objectively wrong info with the citation links leading to sites that don’t back up any claim in it. Or how the outputs of comic style image generation tend to look like knock-off Tintin and appear uninspiring and unsettling. How reading generated paragraphs, looking at images and videos of fluffy slop is simply a waste of time for you. Just mix that with all the rest of the shortcomings people have provided and you’ll make for a good discussion. Remember, the point is not to change people’s minds or proselytize but rather to explain why you hold your opinion.

No is a full sentence.

Oh you want to explain. For those that are really interested, there are websites explaining the main points.

If it’s real life, just talk to them.

If it’s online, especially here on lemmy, there’s a lot of AI brain rotted people who are just going to copy/paste your comments into a chatbot and you’re wasting time.

They also tend to follow you around.

They’ve lost so much of their brains to AI, that even valid criticism of AI feel like personal insults to them.

Maybe trying to be objective is the wrong choice here? After all, it might sound preachy to those who are ignorant to the dangers of AI. Instead, it could be better to stay subjective in hopes to trigger self-reflection.

Here are some arguments I would use for my own personal ‘defense’:

• I like to do the work by myself because the challenge of doing it by my own is part of the fun, especially when I finally get that ‘Eureka!’ moment after especially tough ones. When I use AI, it just feels halfhearted because I just handed it to someone else, which doesn’t sit right with me.
• when I work without AI, I tend to stumble over things that aren’t really relevant to what I’m doing, but are still fun to learn about and might be helpful sometimes else. With AI, I’m way too focused on the end result to even notice that stuff, which makes the work feel even more annoying.
• when I decide to give up or realize I can’t be arsed with it, I usually seek out communities or professionals, because that way it’s either done professionally or I get a better sense of community, but overall feel like I’m supporting someone. With AI, I don’t get that feeling, but rather I only feel either inferior for not coming up with a result as fast as the AI does or frustrated because it either spews out bullshit or doesn’t get the point I’m aiming for.