 Why can't more journalists reporting on "AI" straightforwardly say "This is bad, actually"? Case in point: In this article juxtaposing the grandiose claims of OpenAI et al with the massive environmental footprint of LLMs, Goldman still has to include this weird AI optimism: https://fortune.com/2024/07/12/ai-bizarro-world-agi-electricity-carbon-emissions/ >> 12 comments
 @emilymbender is there any publication basis which tries to delineate the term? I'm reading more in applications, e.g. geometry processing or optics - and all I'm reading are titles referencing concrete methods: neural this, deep that, learning this, transformer that... @emilymbender This is really ridiculous! The paper starts nicely, then, bam, the "AI hype" is back! @emilymbender “I see, as we all can, that the emperor’s new clothes are very fine. But are they worth the cost? And is the emperor warm enough?”  @emilymbender Maybe they're all worried about Roko's basilisk so they're hedging their bets? Of course, hedging one's bets isn't enough for the basilisk, you have to *actively* work *tirelessly* for it, so they might as well just not bother. @emilymbender Because GS and others can’t fully believe their own wisdom if they have billions invested in the opposite. They love market churn because it makes them a lotta money.   @emilymbender Well it's Fortune and journalists by default are writers for hire.
 @emilymbender i listened to NPR this morning talking about the Olympics using AI and they didn't address any negatives to it. |
Gregory's Server
1) Again we see the harm of the term "AI". While there could be some useful applications of machine learning to various climate or materials data in the context of the climate crisis, LLMs (ChatGPT et al) have nothing to do with that.
2) "AI" is bad, actually.