this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
102 points (80.0% liked)

Technology

69906 readers
2013 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hightrix@lemmy.world -4 points 6 days ago (6 children)

AI is the evolution of tools. Like any other modern tool, either learn it and use it or be left behind.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (9 children)

These endless "AI bad" articles are annoying. It's just click bait at this point.

Energy use: false. His example was someone using a 13 year old laptop to get a result and then extrapolating energy use from that. Running ai locally is the same energy as playing a 3d AAA game for the same time. No one screams about the energy footprint of playing games.

AAA game development energy use ( thousands of developers all with watt burning gpus spending years creating assets) dwarfs AI model building energy use.

Copyright, yes it's a problem and should be fixed. But stealing is part of capitalism. Google search itself is based on stealing content and then selling ads to find that content. The entire "oh we might send some clicks your way that you might be able to compensated for" is backwards.

His last reason was new and completely absurd: he doesn't like AI because he doesn't like Musk. Given the public hatred between OpenAI and Musk it's bizarre. Yes Musk has his own AI. But Musk also has electric cars, and space travel. Does the author hate all EV's too? If course not, that argument was added by the author as a troll to get engagement.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

I never thought I'd see the web fight for copyright.

For me it seems like all AI issues boil down to "I don't like stions" which is fine but its kinda delusional to pretend it's something else be it silly energy use complaints or hypocritical copyright nonsense.

[–] Tournesol@feddit.fr 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

OP said "people like Musk" not just Musk. He's just the easiest example to use.

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Copyright, yes it's a problem and should be fixed.

The quick fix: stick to open-source like Jan.ai.

Long-term solution: make profiting AI companies pay for UBI. How to actually calculate that, though, is anyone's guess...

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 15 points 1 week ago

Don't make "profiteering AI companies" pay for UBI. Make all companies pay for UBI. Just tax their income and turn it around into UBI payments.

One of the major benefits of UBI is how simple it is. The simpler the system is the harder it is to game it. If you put a bunch of caveats on which companies pay more or pay less based on various factors, then there'll be tons of faffing about to dodge those taxes.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

make profiting AI companies pay for UBI

As I said, many companies steal content and repackage it for sale. Google did it long before AI. AI is only the most recent offender. Courts have been splitting hairs for decades over music similarities and that's ignoring that entire genres are based on copying the work of influential artists.

[–] dan@upvote.au 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Running ai locally is the same energy as playing a 3d AAA game for the same time

I wonder if they're factoring in the energy usage to train the model. That's what consumes most of the power.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I addressed that in my second paragraph.

In another thread someone brought it up so I did some quick math to see if it was true:

Gta5 cost $300 million. 4000 developers each with the latest GPU burning hundreds of watts per employee to create the assets. A rough estimate of 750watt pc, 4,000 developers, 8 hour a day, 300 days a year, 5 years = 36 giga watt-hours. That’s the energy to power 3.6 million homes for a year and I’m not even including the HVAC costs of the office space. For 1 game.

AI training energy use is small in comparison. ChatGPT 4 cost $80m to train.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] proceduralnightshade@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

I agree, there are still good reasons not to use commercial AI products though.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/securing-america-s-compute-advantage-anthropic-s-position-on-the-diffusion-rule

https://www.mintpressnews.com/trump-killed-minerva-stargate-make-secret-more-dangerous/289313

A new AI/informational war arms race? Whatever, because...

I just don't like it

[–] lmuel@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

I agree on the part that Musk sucks, OpenAI also sucks.

And yup, open source (if you can really call them that, I’d say they’re more like openly available) locally hosted LLMs are cool and have gotten pretty efficient nowadays.

My 5 year old M1 MacBook Pro runs models like Qwen3:14b at decent speeds and it’s quite capable (although I only ever use it for bullshitting lol).

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago (18 children)

Copyright, yes it's a problem and should be fixed.

No, this is just playing into another of the common anti-AI fallacies.

Training an AI does not do anything that copyright is even involved with, let alone prohibited by. Copyright is solely concerned with the copying of specific expressions of ideas, not about the ideas themselves. When an AI trains on data it isn't copying the data, the model doesn't "contain" the training data in any meaningful sense. And the output of the AI is even further removed.

People who insist that AI training is violating copyright are advocating for ideas and styles to be covered by copyright. Or rather by some other entirely new type of IP protection, since as I said this is nothing at all like what copyright already deals with. This would be an utterly terrible thing for culture and free expression in general if it were to come to pass.

I get where this impulse comes from. Modern society has instilled a general sense that everything has to be "owned" by someone, even completely abstract things. Everyone thinks that they're owed payment for everything that they can possibly demand payment for, even if it's something that just yesterday they were doing purely for fun and releasing to the world without a care. There's this base impulse of "mine! Therefore I must control it!" Ironically, it's what leads to the capitalist hellscape so many people are decrying at the same time they demand more.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›