Wim🧮I wrote down why I think even a "perfect" AI (unbiased, ethically trained, highly capable, ... ) is not necessarily a good thing. It's all about who controls it.
Amalia ZeichnerinRecommendable post by Samantha Shannon:
"For readers who are against generative AI in their books"
With some advice what to do and what better not.
https://imginn.com/p/DXETqRKjRdT/
#reading #writingcommunity #readingcommunity #writing #books
The discourse on whether "AI" "works" or not misses the point. It frames utility in a very narrow, micro-economic way whereas the actual issues are macro-economic.
Climate change and reliance on fossil fuel are already hurting the global economy. The "AI" hype reinforces the need to keep fossil fuels. In addition, it causes a whole range of other macro-economic harms (see my earlier post https://scholar.social/@wim_v12e/116359082277792450). In that context, whether it "works" or not is irrelevant.
Wim🧮 (@[email protected])
You know that I am mostly concerned with the way the "AI" hype is making global warming worse. Most people are likely more concerned about economic harms, such as: - "AI" is depressing wages and income because employers or customers can now claim your skills are worth less, and that you should be more productive [1,2] - "AI" is causing unemployment, not because it is replacing workers but because companies fund their investment in "AI" by reducing their workforce. [3] (1/3) #AI #NoToAI
Have you ever wondered why Meta released LLaMa for free and called it "open"? Why other AI companies have been doing the same with their models? It is not out of the goodness of their hearts: corporations have neither goodness nor a heart. So why? The answer is simple as corporations are driven by a single overarching purpose: to maximise shareholder value.
They do this because they know it will not hurt their profits, will garner goodwill and will foster adoption.
If you need generative AI to be happy, then your happiness is too dearly bought. If you don't need it to be happy but still use it, then your convenience is certainly not worth that cost to the world.
And I have not even mentioned societal and cognitive harms.
References for the above claims:
[1] https://www.iese.edu/insight/articles/artificial-intelligence-junior-employees-wages/
[2] https://www.mckinsey.com/uk/our-insights/the-mckinsey-uk-blog/ai-uneven-effects-on-uk-jobs-and-talent
[4] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/27/tech/ai-memory-chips-smartphones-intl-hnk
[5] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-ai-data-centers-electricity-prices/
[6] https://www.consumerreports.org/data-centers/ai-data-centers-impact-on-electric-bills-water-and-more-a1040338678/
(3/3)
- "AI" is pushing up prices of consumer electronics because the "AI" companies are cornering the semiconductor manufacturing market. [4]
- "AI" is pushing up consumer electricity and water bills [5,6]
- In fact, according to the Goldman Sachs [7], "AI" is causing inflation and depressing consumer spending and economic growth.
(2/3)
So tell me why we should *not* be critical of "AI"?
You know that I am mostly concerned with the way the "AI" hype is making global warming worse.
Most people are likely more concerned about economic harms, such as:
- "AI" is depressing wages and income because employers or customers can now claim your skills are worth less, and that you should be more productive [1,2]
- "AI" is causing unemployment, not because it is replacing workers but because companies fund their investment in "AI" by reducing their workforce. [3]
(1/3) #AI #NoToAI
Ich weise noch mal auf diese Aktion hin - macht gern mit. Das geht ohne Angabe der eigenen E-Mail-Adresse und ohne Registrierung.
Alle weiteren Details:
https://nicht-nett-flix.de/
#Netflix #NichtNettflix #Synchronsprecher #NoAI #NotoAi #AIartisnotart
MarianneDon't make or share fucking genAI #AprilFools
This shit is the worst anyway, no need to make it EVEN MORE SHIT.
#noThanks #genAIslop #noToAI