Gregory's Server@remenca @eniko No one here is calling the latest generations of AI "trivial", but whether the models and algorithms made using any kind of AI contribute to fairness and sustainability is something each and everyone working with them needs to reflect upon seriously. It is substantially harder for an LLM to be fair and sustainable than a crafted procedure-based generation algorithm, so the latter seemingly receiving backlash as of late is unreasonable.
|
7 comments
Now, if we move into whether LLMs can be fair or not compared to procedural algorithms I must concede. But again, this was not the original topic. And ofc there is people working in AI reflect a lot on that and that is why there is a lot of people working in fairness and efficiency. Others only care about money, but that also happens in other fields. Finally, I'd like extend this concern for fairness and the consequences of automation to other fields, such as yours for instance. I see you hold a PhD in computer science. Have you wondered if the impact of all automatization carried thanks to computers? Did anyone gave a fuck about all the people who lost their jobs because an industrial robot replaced them in a factory? Probably not. The only difference is that instead of a poor fucker being the one to lose their job, now it is the turn of intellectual workers who (mistakenly) thought that they were free from being threatened by automatization. And the sheer scale of the problem. But that's all.  Rather more that it's an entirely different class, if they were on a Venn diagram they'd be separate circles. Individuals not understanding either getting hung up on the term generative. You don't have to jump to the defence of LLMs. |
@E_net4 @eniko
I wish I could reproduce the original toot but it seems I have been blocked. If I'm not wrong it did insinuated that procedural art is more complex than training AI system. So my reply arguing otherwise was appropriate.