Those of you that have negative sentiments towards AI: What would you want to happen right now?

If we're going pie in the sky I would want to see any models built on work they didn't obtain permission for to be shut down.
Failing that, any models built on stolen work should be released to the public for free.
- This is the best solution. Also, any use of AI should have to be stated and watermarked. If they used someone's art, that artist has to be listed as a contributor and you have to get permission. Just like they do for every film, they have to give credit. This includes music, voice and visual art. I don't care if they learned it from 10,000 people, list them.
- Definitely need copyright laws. What if everything has to be watermarked in some way and it’s illegal to use AI generated content for commercial use unless permitted by creators?
  
  The problem with trying to police the output is there isn't a surefire way to detect the fact it's generated. That's why I prefer targeting the companies who created the problematic models.
- Genuine curiosity. Not an attack. Did you download music illegally back in the day? Or torrent things? Do you feel the same about those copyrighted materials?
  
  Nah not really. I think piracy is a complex issue though, with far less wide reaching collateral damage. I wouldn't compare the two, personally.
- If we're going pie in the sky I would want to see any models built on work they didn't obtain permission for to be shut down.
  I'm going to ask the tough question: Why?
  Search engines work because they can download and store everyone's copyrighted works without permission. If you take away that ability, we'd all lose the ability to search the Internet.
  Copyright law lets you download whatever TF you want. It isn't until you distribute said copyrighted material that you violate copyright law.
  Before generative AI, Google screwed around internally with all those copyrighted works in dozens of different ways. They never asked permission from any of those copyright holders.
  Why is that OK but doing the same with generative AI is not? I mean, really think about it! I'm not being ridiculous here, this is a serious distinction.
  If OpenAI did all the same downloading of copyrighted content as Google and screwed around with it internally to train AI then never released a service to the public would that be different?
  If I'm an artist that makes paintings and someone pays me to copy someone else's copyrighted work. That's on me to make sure I don't do that. It's not really the problem of the person that hired me to do it unless they distribute the work.
  However, if I use a copier to copy a book then start selling or giving away those copies that's my problem: I would've violated copyright law. However, is it Xerox's problem? Did they do anything wrong by making a device that can copy books?
  If you believe that it's not Xerox's problem then you're on the side of the AI companies. Because those companies that make LLMs available to the public aren't actually distributing copyrighted works. They are, however, providing a tool that can do that (sort of). Just like a copier.
  If you paid someone to study a million books and write a novel in the style of some other author you have not violated any law. The same is true if you hire an artist to copy another artist's style. So why is it illegal if an AI does it? Why is it wrong?
  My argument is that there's absolutely nothing illegal about it. They're clearly not distributing copyrighted works. Not intentionally, anyway. That's on the user. If someone constructs a prompt with the intention of copying something as closely as possible... To me, that is no different than walking up to a copier with a book. You're using a general-purpose tool specifically to do something that's potentially illegal.
  So the real question is this: Do we treat generative AI like a copier or do we treat it like an artist?
  If you're just angry that AI is taking people's jobs say that! Don't beat around the bush with nonsense arguments about using works without permission... Because that's how search engines (and many other things) work. When it comes to using copyrighted works, not everything requires consent.
  
  Search engines work because they can download and store everyone's copyrighted works without permission. If you take away that ability, we'd all lose the ability to search the Internet.
  No they don't. They index the content of the page and score its relevance and reliability, and still provide the end user with the actual original information
  
  However, if I use a copier to copy a book then start selling or giving away those copies that's my problem: I would've violated copyright law. However, is it Xerox's problem? Did they do anything wrong by making a device that can copy books?
  This is false equivalence
  LLMs do not wholesale reproduce an original work in it's original form, they make it easy to mass produce a slightly altered form without any way to identify the original attribution.
  
  If you paid someone to study a million books and write a novel in the style of some other author you have not violated any law. The same is true if you hire an artist to copy another artist's style. So why is it illegal if an AI does it? Why is it wrong?
  I think this is intentionally missing the point.
  LLMs don't actually think, or produce original ideas. If the human artist produces a work that too closely resembles a copyrighted work, then they will be subject to those laws. LLMs are not capable of producing new works, by definition they are 100% derivative. But their methods in doing so intentionally obfuscate attribution and allow anyone to flood a space with works that require actual humans to identify the copyright violations.
  
  Like the other comments say, LLMs (the thing you're calling AI) don't think. They aren't intelligent. If I steal other people's work and copy pieces of it and distribute it as if I made it, that's wrong. That's all LLMs are doing. They aren't "being inspired" or anything like that. That requires thought. They are copying data and creating outputs based on weights that tell it how and where to put copied material.
  I think the largest issue is people hearing the term "AI" and taking it at face value. There's no intelligence, only an algorithm. It's a convoluted algorithm that is hard to tell what going on just by looking at it, but it is an algorithm. There are no thoughts, only weights that are trained on data to generate predictable outputs based on given inputs. If I write an algorithm that steals art and reorganizes into unique pieces, that's still stealing their art.
  For a current example, the stuff going on with Marathon is pretty universally agreed upon to be bad and wrong. However, you're arguing if it was an LLM that copied the artist's work into their product it would be fine. That doesn't seem reasonable, does it?

I want people to figure out how to think for themselves and create for themselves without leaning on a glorified Markov chain. That's what I want.
- AI people always want to ignore the environmental damage as well...
  Like all that electricity and water are just super abundant things humans have plenty of.
  Everytime some idiot asks AI instead of googling it themselves the planet gets a little more fucked
  
  Are you not aware that Google also runs on giant data centers that eat enormous amounts of power too?
  
  This is my #1 issue with it. My work is super pushing AI. The other day I was trying to show a colleague how to do something in teams and as I'm trying to explain to them (and they're ignoring where I'm telling them to click) they were like "you know, this would be a great use of AI to figure it out!".
  I said no and asked them to give me their fucking mouse.
  People are really out there fucking with extremely powerful wasteful AI for something as stupid as that.
  
  Nobody is getting this problem under control. AI users and developers are moving too fast now.
  It feels like developers will max out our resources before we can get a grip on it. I watched a podcast with Zuck talking about their ideas for new features that they can’t even develop because they’re be capped by infrastructure.
- Maybe if the actual costs—especially including environmental costs from its energy use—were included in each query, we’d start thinking for ourselves again. It’s not worth it for most things it’s used for at the moment
- I totally understand your point of view. AI seems like the nail in the coffin for digital dominance over humans. It will debilitate people by today’s standards.
  Can we compare gen AI tools to any other tools that currently eliminate some level of labor for us to do? e.g. drag and drop programs tools
  Where do we draw the line? Can people then think and create in different ways using different tools?
  Some GPT’s are already integrating historical conversations. We’re past Markov chain.
- I agree with this sentiment but I don't see it actually convincing anyone of the dangers of AI. It reminds me a lot of how teachers said that calculators won't always be available and we need to learn how to do mental math. That didn't convince anyone then
- So your argument against AI is that it's making us dumb? Just like people have claimed about every technology since the invention of writing? The essence of the human experience is change, we invent new tools and then those tools change how we interact with the world, that's how it's always been, but there have always been people saying the internet is making us dumb, or the TV, or books, or whatever.
  
  Get back to me after you have a few dozen conversations with people who openly say "Well I asked ChatGPT and it said..." without providing any actual input of their own.
- People haven’t ”thought for themselves” since the printing press was invented. You gotta be more specific than that.
  
  Ah, yes, the 14th century. That renowned period of independent critical thought and mainstream creativity. All downhill from there, I tell you.
  
  Speak for yourself.

I want real, legally-binding regulation, that’s completely agnostic about the size of the company. OpenAI, for example, needs to be regulated with the same intensity as a much smaller company. And OpenAI should have no say in how they are regulated.
I want transparent and regular reporting on energy consumption by any AI company, including where they get their energy and how much they pay for it.
Before any model is released to the public, I want clear evidence that the LLM will tell me if it doesn’t know something, and will never hallucinate or make something up.
Every step of any deductive process needs to be citable and traceable.
- Before any model is released to the public, I want clear evidence that the LLM will tell me if it doesn’t know something, and will never hallucinate or make something up.
  Their creators can't even keep them from deliberately lying.
  
  Exactly.
- Clear reporting should include not just the incremental environmental cost of each query, but also a statement of the invested cost in the underlying training.
- ... I want clear evidence that the LLM ... will never hallucinate or make something up.
  Nothing else you listed matters: That one reduces to "Ban all Generative AI". Actually worse than that, it's "Ban all machine learning models".
  
  If "they have to use good data and actually fact check what they say to people" kills "all machine leaning models" then it's a death they deserve.
  The fact is that you can do the above, it's just much, much harder (you have to work with data from trusted sources), much slower (you have to actually validate that data), and way less profitable (your AI will be able to reply to way less questions) then pretending to be the "answer to everything machine."
  
  Let’s say I open a medical textbook a few different times to find the answer to something concrete, and each time the same reference material leads me to a different answer but every answer it provides is wrong but confidently passes it off as right. Then yes, that medical textbook should be banned.
  Quality control is incredibly important, especially when people will use these systems to make potentially life-changing decisions for them.
- This is awesome! The citing and tracing is already improving. I feel like no hallucinations is gonna be a while.
  How does it all get enforced? FTC? How does this become reality?
- OpenAI, for example, needs to be regulated with the same intensity as a much smaller company
  not too long ago they went to Congress to get them to regulate the ai industry a lot more and wanted the govt to require licences to train large models. Large companies can benefit from regulations when they aren't easy for smaller competitors to follow.
  And OpenAI should have no say in how they are regulated.
  For sure, otherwise regulation could be made too restrictive, lowing competition
  Before any model is released to the public, I want clear evidence that the LLM will tell me if it doesn’t know something, and will never hallucinate or make something up.
  I think thats technically really difficult, but maybe if the output of the model was checked against preexisting sources that could happen, like what Google uses for Gemini
  Every step of any deductive process needs to be citable and traceable.
  I'm pretty sure this is completely impossible
- I want clear evidence that the LLM will tell me if it doesn’t know something, and will never hallucinate or make something up.
  Every step of any deductive process needs to be citable and traceable.
  I mostly agree, but "never" is too high a bar IMO. It's way, way higher than the bar even for humans. Maybe like 0.1% or something would be reasonable?
  Even Einstein misremembered things sometimes.

They have to pay for every copyrighted material used in the entire models whenever the AI is queried.
They are only allowed to use data that people opt into providing.
- There's no way that's even feasible. Instead, AI models trained on pubically available data should be considered part of the public domain. So, any images that anyone can go and look at without a barrier in the way, would be fair game, but the model would be owned by the public.
  
  There's no way that's even feasible.
  It's totally feasible, just very expensive.
  Either copyright doesn't exist in its current form or AI companies don't.
  
  Its only not feasible because it would kill AIs.
  Large models have to steal everything from everyone to be baseline viable
  
  no way that's even possible
  Oh no... Anyway
  
  Public Domain does not mean being able to see something without a barrier in the way. The vast majority of text and media you can consume for free on the Internet is not in the Public Domain.
  Instead, "Public Domain" means that 1) the creator has explicitly released it into the Public Domain, or 2) the work's copyright has expired, which in turn then means that anyone is from that point on entitled to use that work for any purpose.
  All the major AI models scarfed up works without concern for copyrights, licenses, permissions, etc. For great profit. In some cases, like at least Meta, they knowingly used known collections of pirated works to do so.
- What about models folks run at home?
  
  Careful, that might require a nuanced discussion that reveals the inherent evil of capitalism and neoliberalism. Better off just ensuring that wealthy corporations can monopolize the technology and abuse artists by paying them next-to-nothing for their stolen work rather than nothing at all.
  
  I think if you’re not making money off the model and its content, then you’re good.
- I would make a case for creation of datasets by a international institution like the UNESCO. The used data would be representative for world culture, and creation of the datasets would have to be sponsored by whoever wants to create models out of it, so that licencing fees can be paid to creators. If you wanted to make your mark on global culture, you would have an incentive to offer training data to UNESCO.
  I know, that would be idealistic and fair to everyone. No way this would fly in our age.
- This definitely relates to moral concerns. Are there other examples like this of a company that is allowed to profit off of other people’s content without paying or citing them?
  
  Hollywood, from the very start. Its why it is across the US from New York, to get outside of the legal reach of Broadway show companies they stole from.
  Stack overflow
  Reddit.
  Google.

Like a lot of others, my biggest gripe is the accepted copyright violation for the wealthy. They should have to license data (text, images, video, audio,) for their models, or use material in the public domain. With that in mind, in return I'd love to see pushes to drastically reduce the duration of copyright. My goal is less about destroying generative AI, as annoying as it is, and more about leveraging the money being it to change copyright law.
I don't love the environmental effects but I think the carbon output of OpenAI is probably less than TikTok, and no one cares about that because they enjoy TikTok more. The energy issue is honestly a bigger problem than AI. And while I understand and appreciate people worried about throwing more weight on the scales, I'm not sure it's enough to really matter. I think we need bigger "what if" scenarios to handle that.

TBH, it's mostly the corporate control and misinformation/hype that's the problem. And the fact that they can require substantial energy use and are used for such trivial shit. And that that use is actively degrading people's capacity for critical thinking.
ML in general can be super useful, and is an excellent tool for complex data analysis that can lead to really useful insights..
So yeah, uh... Eat the rich? And the marketing departments. And incorporate emissions into pricing, or regulate them to the point where it only becomes viable to non-trivial use cases.

The technology side of generative AI is fine. It's interesting and promising technology.
The business side sucks and the AI companies just the latest continuation of the tech grift. Trying to squeeze as much money from latest hyped tech, laws or social or environmental impact be damned.
We need legislation to catch up. We also need society to be able to catch up. We can't let the AI bros continue to foist more "helpful tools" on us, grab the money, and then just watch as it turns out to be damaging in unpredictable ways.
- I agree, but I’d take it a step further and say we need legislation to far surpass the current conditions. For instance, I think it should be governments leading the charge in this field, as a matter of societal progress and national security.

Long, long before this AI craze began, I was warning people as a young 20-something political activist that we needed to push for Universal Basic Income because the inevitable march of technology would mean that labor itself would become irrelevant in time and that we needed to hash out a system to maintain the dignity of every person now rather than wait until the system is stressed beyond it's ability to cope with massive layoffs and entire industries taken over by automation/AI. When the ability of the average person to sell their ability to work becomes fundamentally compromised, capitalism will collapse in on itself - I'm neither pro- nor anti-capitalist, but people have to acknowledge that nearly all of western society is based on capitalism and if capitalism collapses then society itself is in jeopardy.
I was called alarmist, that such a thing was a long way away and we didn't need "socialism" in this country, that it was more important to maintain the senseless drudgery of the 40-hour work week for the sake of keeping people occupied with work but not necessarily fulfilled because the alternative would not make the line go up.
Now, over a decade later, and generative AI has completely infiltrated almost all creative spaces and nobody except tech bros and C-suite executives are excited about that, and we still don't have a safety net in place.
Understand this - I do not hate the idea of AI. I was a huge advocate of AI, as a matter of fact. I was confident that the gradual progression and improvement of technology would be the catalyst that could free us from the shackles of the concept of a 9-to-5 career. When I was a teenager, there was this little program you could run on your computer called Folding At Home. It was basically a number-crunching engine that uses your GPU to fold proteins, and the data was sent to researchers studying various diseases. It was a way for my online friends and I to flex how good our PC specs were with the number of folds we could complete in a given time frame and also we got to contribute to a good cause at the same time. These days, they use AI for that sort of thing, and that's fucking awesome. That's what I hope to see AI do more of - take the rote, laborious, time consuming tasks that would take one or more human beings a lifetime to accomplish using conventional tools and have the machine assist in compiling and sifting through the data to find all the most important aspects. I want to see more of that.
I think there's a meme floating around that really sums it up for me. Paraphrasing, but it goes "I thought that AI would do the dishes and fold my laundry so I could have more time for art and writing, but instead AI is doing all my art and writing so I have time to fold clothes and wash dishes.".
I think generative AI is both flawed and damaging, and it gives AI as a whole a bad reputation because generative AI is what the consumer gets to see, and not the AI that is being used as a tool to help people make their lives easier.
Speaking of that, I also take issue with that fact that we are more productive than ever before, and AI will only continue to improve that productivity margin, but workers and laborers across the country will never see a dime of compensation for that. People might be able to do the work of two or even three people with the help of AI assistants, but they certainly will never get the salary of three people, and it means that two out of those three people probably don't have a job anymore if demand doesn't increase proportionally.
I want to see regulations on AI. Will this slow down the development and advancement of AI? Almost certainly, but we've already seen the chaos that unfettered AI can cause to entire industries. It's a small price to pay to ask that AI companies prove that they are being ethical and that their work will not damage the livelihood of other people, or that their success will not be born off the backs of other creative endeavors.
- Fwiw, I've been getting called an alarmist for talking about Trump's and Republican's fascist tendencies since at least 2016, if not earlier. I'm now comfortably living in another country.
  My point being that people will call you an alarmist for suggesting anything that requires them to go out of their comfort zone. It doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, it just shows how stupid people are.
  
  Did you move overseas? And if you did, was it expensive to move your things?

Other people have some really good responses in here.
I'm going to echo that AI is highlighting the problems of capitalism. The ownership class wants to fire a bunch of people and replace them with AI, and keep all that profit for themselves. Not good.
- Nobody talks how it highlights the success of capitalism either.
  I live in SEA and AI is incredibly powerful here giving opportunity for anyone to learn. The net positive of this is incredible even if you think that copyright is good and intellectual property needs government protection. It's just that lop sided of an argument.
  I think western social media is spoiled and angry and the wrong thing but fighting these people is entirely pointless because you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Big tech == bad, blah blah blah.
  
  You don't need AI for people to learn. I'm not sure what's left of your point without that assertion.
  
  Nobody talks how it highlights the success of capitalism either.
  it definitely does both

What do I really want?
Stop fucking jamming it up the arse of everything imaginable. If you asked for a genie wish, make it it illegal to be anything but opt in.
- I think it's just a matter of time before it starts being removed from places where it just isn't useful. For now companies are just throwing it at everything to see what sticks. WhatsApp and JustEat added AI features and I have no idea why or how it could be used for those services and I can't imagine people using them.

I'm not against it as a technology. I use it for my personal use, as a toy, to have some fun or to whatever.
But what I despise is the forced introduction everything. AI written articles and AI forced assistants in many unrelated apps. That's what I want to disappear, how they force in lots of places.

Magic wish granted? Everyone gains enough patience to leave it to research until it can be used safely and sensibly. It was fine when it was an abstract concept being researched by CS academics. It only became a problem when it all went public and got tangled in VC money.
- Unfortunately, right now the world is providing the greatest level of research for AI.
  I feel like the only thing that the world universally bans is nuclear weapons. AI would have to become so dangerous that the world decides to leave it in the lab, but you can easily make an LLM at home. You can’t just make nuclear power in your room.
  How do you get your wish?
  
  If I knew how to grant my wish, it'd be less of a wish and more of a quest. Sadly, I don't think there's a way to give patience to the world.

That stealing copyrighted works would be as illegal for these companies as it is for normal people. Sick and tired of seeing them get away with it.

Idrc about ai or whatever you want to call it. Make it all open source. Make everything an ai produces public domain. Instantly kill every billionaire who's said the phrase "ai" and redistribute their wealth.
- Ya know what? Forget the ai criteria let's just have this for all billionaires
- I'm all for open source
  but you know I was totally with you until you said kill all the billionaires
  
  Yeah not everyone has the stomach for class genocide

For it to go away just like Web 3.0 and NFTs did. Stop cramming it up our asses in every website and application. Make it opt in instead of maybe if you're lucky, opt out. And also, stop burning down the planet with data center power and water usage. That's all.
Edit: Oh yeah, and get sued into oblivion for stealing every copyrighted work known to man. That too.
Edit 2: And the tech press should be ashamed for how much they've been fawning over these slop generators. They gladly parrot press releases, claim it's the next big thing, and generally just suckle at the teet of AI companies.

Rename it to LLMs, because that's that it is. When the hype label is gone, it won't get shoved into everywhere for shits and giggles and be used for stuff it's actually useful for.

First of all stop calling it AI. It is just large language models for the most part.
Second: immediate carbon tax in line with the current damage expectations for emissions on the energy consumption of datacenters. That would be around 400$/tCO2 iirc.
Third: Make it obligatory by law to provide disclaimers about what it is actually doing. So if someone asks "is my partner cheating on me". The first message should be "this tool does not understand what is real and what is false. It has no actual knowledge of anything, in particular not of your personal situation. This tool just puts words together that seem more likely to belong together. It cannot give any personal advice and cannot be used for any knowledge gain. This tool is solely to be used for entertainment purposes. If you use the answers of this tool in any dangerous way, such as for designing machinery, operating machinery, financial decisions or similar you are liable for it yourself."
- Agreed LLMs for mass consumption should come with some disclaimer
- "This tool is exclusively built to respond to your chats how a person would. this includes claiming it knows things reguardless of it actually does. it's knolage is limited to it's 'training' process' "
- First of all stop calling it AI. It is just large language models for the most part.
  Leave it to the anti-AI people to show their misunderstandings fast and early. LLMs are AIs, they're not general AIs
  
  The path finding system of most games with enemies are also AI. Its a generic term
  When someone thinks of the word "AI", they probably think of a sentient computer, not a lot of math. Its causing confusion on how it works and what it can do

Admittedly very tough question. Here are some of the ideas I just came up with:
Make it easier to hold people or organizations liable for mistakes made because of haphazard reliance on LLMs.
Reparations for everyone ever sued for piracy, and completely do away with intellectual privacy protections for corporations, but independent artists get to keep them.
Public service announcements campaign aimed at making the general public less trustful of LLMs.
Strengthen consumer protection such that baseless claims of AI capabilities in advertising or product labeling are legally dangerous to make.
Fine companies for every verifiably inaccurate result given to a customer or end user by an LLM
- I'd want all of these, and some way to prevent companies from laying off so many people and replacing them with AI - maybe some government-based incentives for having actual employees.

I do not need AI and I do not want AI, I want to see it regulated to the point that it becomes severly unprofitable. The world is burning and we are heading face first towards a climate catastrophe (if we're not already there), we DONT need machines to mass produce slop.

I just want my coworkers to stop dumping ai slop in my inbox and expecting me to take it seriously.
- Have you tried filtering, translating, or summarizing your inbox through AI? /s
- I dunno. It's better than their old, non-AI slop 🤷
  Before, I didn't really understand what they were trying to communicate. Now—thanks to AI—I know they weren't really trying to communicate anything at all. They were just checking off a box 👍

Regulate its energy consumption and emissions. As a whole, the entire AI industry. Any energy or emissions in effort to develop, train, or operate AI should be limited.
If AI is here to stay, we must regulate what slice of the planet we're willing to give it. I mean, AI is cool and all, and it's been really fascinating watching how quickly these algorithms have progressed. Not to oversimplify it, but a complex Markov chain isn't really worth the energy consumption that it currently requires.
A strict regulation now, would be a leg up in preventing any rogue AI, or runaway algorithms that would just consume energy to the detriment of life. We need a hand on the plug. Capitalism can't be trusted to self regulate. Just look at the energy grabs all the big AI companies have been doing already (xAI's datacenter, Amazon and Google's investments into nuclear). It's going to get worse. They'll just keep feeding it more and more energy. Gutting the planet to feed the machine, so people can generate sexy cat girlfriends and cheat in their essays.
We should be funding efforts to utilize AI more for medical research. protein folding , developing new medicines, predicting weather, communicating with nature, exploring space. We're thinking to small. AI needs to make us better. With how much energy we throw at it we should be seeing something positive out of that investment.
- These companies investing in nuclear is the only good thing about it. Nuclear power is our best, cleanest option to supplement renewables like solar and wind, and it has the ability to pick up the slack when the variable power generation doesn't meet the variable demand. If we can trick those mega-companies into lobbying the government to allow nuclear fuel recycling, we'll be all set to ditch fossil fuels fairly quickly. (provided they also lobby to streamline the permitting process and reverse the DOGE gutting of the government agency that provides all of the startup loans used for nuclear power plants.)

There's too many solid reasons to be upset with, well, not AI per say, but the companies that implement, market, and control the AI ecosystem and conversation to go into in a single post. Sufficient to say I think AI is an existential threat to humanity mainly because of who's controlling it and who's not.
We have no regulation on AI, we have no respect for artists, writers, musicians, actors, and workers in general coming from these AI peddling companies, we only see more and more surveillance and control over multiple aspects of our lives being consolidated around these AI companies and even worse, we get nothing more in exchange except for the promise of increased productivity and quality, and that increase in productivity and quality is a lie. AI currently gives you the wrong answer or some half truth or some abomination of someone else's artwork really really fast...that is all it does, at least for the public sector currently.
For the private sector at best it alienates people as chatbots, and at worst is being utilized to infer data for surveillance of people. The tools of technology at large are being used to suppress and obfuscate speech by whoever uses it, and AI is one tool amongst many at the disposal of these tech giants.
AI is exacerbating a knowledge crisis that was already in full swing as both educators and students become less curious about subjects that don't inherently relate to making profits or consolidating power. And because knowledge is seen as solely a way to gather more resources/power and survive in an ever increasingly hostile socioeconomic climate, people will always reach for the lowest hanging fruit to get to that goal, rather than actually knowing how to solve a problem that hasn't been solved before or inherently understand a problem that has been solved before or just know something relatively useless because it's interesting to them.
There's too many good reasons AI is fucking shit up, and in all honesty what people in general tote about AI is definitely just a hype cycle that will not end well for the majority of us and at the very least, we should be upset and angry about it.
Here are further resources if you didn't get enough ranting.
lemmy.world's fuck_ai community
System Crash Podcast
Tech Won't Save Us Podcast
Better Offline Podcast
- I love the passion! Was this always our fate? Can we not adapt like we have so many times in human history?

Serious investigation into copyright breaches done by AI creators. They ripped off images and texts, even whole books, without the copyright owners permissions.
If any normal person broke the laws like this, they would hand out prison sentences till kingdom come and fines the size of the US debt.
I just ask for the law to be applied to all equally. What a surprising concept...
- We are filthy criminals if we pirate one textbook for studies. But when Facebook (Meta) pirates millions of books (anywhere between 30 million and 200 million ebooks, depending on their file size), they are a brilliant and successful business.

Part of what makes me so annoyed is that there's no realistic scenario I can think of that would feel like a good outcome.
Emphasis on realistic, before anyone describes some insane turn of events.
- Some jobs are automated and prices go down. That’s realistic enough. To be fair there’s good and bad likely in that scenario. So tack on some level of UBI. Still realistic? That’d be pretty good.
  
  I'm afraid I can only give partial credit, my grading rubric required a mention of "purchasing power".
- I think somehow incentivizing companies to use solar power to power their data centers would be a step in the right direction
  
  That would be a win. I think they're currently angling for more nuclear energy. Because of course.

Lots of copyright comments.
I want those building it at scale to stop killing my planet.

Training data needs to be 100% traceable and licensed appropriately.
Energy usage involved in training and running the model needs to be 100% traceable and some minimum % of renewable (if not 100%).
Any model whose training includes data in the public domain should itself become public domain.
And while we're at it we should look into deliberately taking more time at lower clock speeds to try to reduce or eliminate the water usage gone to cooling these facilities.

I'd like there to be a web-wide expectation by everyone that any AI generated text, comment, story or image be clearly marked as being AI. That people would feel incensed and angry when it wasn't labeled so. Rather than wondering whether there were a person with a soul producing the content, or losing faith that real info could be found online.

Destroy capitalism. That's the issue here. All AI fears stem from that.
- Trained on stolen ideas: ✅
  replacing humans who have little to no safety net while enriching an owner class: ✅
  disregard for resource allocation, use, and pollution in the pursuit of profit: ✅
  being forced into everything as to become unavoidable and foster dependence: ✅
  Hey wow look at that, capitalism is the fucking problem again!
  God we are such pathetic gamblemonkeys, we cannot get it together.

Make AIs OpenSource by law.

I want disclosure. I want a tag or watermark to let people know that AI was used. I want to see these companies pay dues for the content used in the similar vein that we have to pay for higher learning. And we need to stop calling it AI as well.

I am largely concerned that the development and evolution of generative AI is driven by hype/consumer interests instead of academia. Companies will prioritize opportunities to profit from consumers enjoying the novelty and use the tech to increase vendor lock-in.
I would much rather see the field advanced by scientific and academic interests. Let's focus on solving problems that help everyone instead of temporarily boosting profit margins.
I believe this is similar to how CPU R&D changed course dramatically in the 90s due to the sudden popularity in PCs. We could have enjoyed 64 bit processors and SMT a decade earlier.

My issue is that the c-levels and executives see it as a way of eliminating one if their biggest costs - labour.
They want their educated labour reduced by three quarters. They want me doing the jobs of 4 people with the help of AI, and they want to pay me less than they already are.
What I would like is a universal basic income paid for by taxing the shit out of the rich.

I'm perfectly ok with AI, I think it should be used for the advancement of humanity. However, 90% of popular AI is unethical BS that serves the 1%. But to detect spoiled food or cancer cells? Yes please!
It needs extensive regulation, but doing so requires tech literate politicians who actually care about their constituents. I'd say that'll happen when pigs fly, but police choppers exist so idk

I'd like to have laws that require AI companies to publicly list their sources/training materials.
I'd like to see laws defining what counts as AI, and then banning advertising non-compliant software and hardware as "AI".
I'd like to see laws banning the use of generative AI for creating misleading political, social, or legal materials.
My big problems with AI right now, are that we don't know what info has been scooped up by them. Companies are pushing misleading products as AI, while constantly overstating the capabilities and under-delivering, which will damage the AI industry as a whole. I'd also want to see protections to keep stupid and vulnerable people from believing AI generated content is real. Remember, a few years ago, we had to convince people not to eat tidepods. AI can be a very powerful tool for manipulating the ranks of stupid people.

I want the LLMs to be able to determine their source works during the query process to be able to pay the source copyright owners some amount. That way if you generate a Ms Piggy image, it pays the Henson Workshop some fraction of a penny. Eventually it would add up.

Stop selling it a loss.
When each ugly picture costs $1.75, and every needless summary or expansion costs 59 cents, nobody's going to want it.

I don't dislike ai, I dislike capitalism. Blaming the technology is like blaming the symptom instead of the disease. Ai just happens to be the perfect tool to accelerate that

People have negative sentiments towards AI under a captalist system, where the most successful is equal to most profitable and that does not translate into the most useful for humanity
We have technology to feed everyone and yet we don't We have technology to house everyone and yet we don't We have technology to teach everyone and yet we don't
Captalist democracy is not real democracy
- This is it. People don't have feelings for a machine. People have feelings for the system and the oligarchs running things, but said oligarchs keep telling you to hate the inanimate machine.
  
  Rage Against the Inanimate Machine

(Ignoring all the stolen work to train the models for a minute)
It's got its uses and potential, things like translations, writing prompts, or a research tool.
But all the products that force it in places that clearly do not need it and solving problems could be solved by two or three steps of logic.
The failed attempts at replacing jobs, screen resumes or monitoring employees is terrible.
Lastly the AI relationships are not good.

Gen AI should be an optional tool to help us improve our work and life, not an unavoidable subscription service that makes it all worse and makes us dumber in the process.

Shutting these "AI"s down. The once out for the public dont help anyone. They do more damage then they are worth.

I want all of the CEOs and executives that are forcing shitty AI into everything to get pancreatic cancer and die painfully in a short period of time.
Then I want all AI that is offered commercially or in commercial products to be required to verify their training data and be severely punished for misusing private and personal data. Copyright violations need to be punished severely, and using copyrighted works being used for AI training counts.
AI needs to be limited to optional products trained with properly sourced data if it is going to be used commercially. Individual implementations and use for science is perfectly fine as long as the source data is either in the public domain or from an ethically collected data set.
- So, a lot of our AI customers have no real use for LLM. It's pharmaceutical and genetics companies looking for the treatments and cures for things like pancreatic cancer and Parkinson's.
  It is a big problem to paint all generative AI with the "stealing IP" brush.
  It seems likely to me that an AI may be the only controller that can handle all of the rapidly changing parameters needed to maintain a safe fusion process. Yes it needs safeties. But it needs research, too.
  I urge much more consideration of the specific uses of this new technology. I agree that IP theft is bad. Let's target the bad parts carefully.

The most popular models used online need to include citations for everything. It can be used to automate some white collar/knowledge work but needs to be scrutinized heavily by independent thinkers when using it to try to predict trend and future events.
As always schools need to be better at teaching critical thinking, epistemology, emotional intelligence way earlier than we currently do and AI shows that rote subject matter is a dated way to learn.
When artists create art, there should be some standardized seal, signature, or verification that the artist did not use AI or used it only supplementally on the side. This would work on the honor system and just constitute a scandal if the artist is eventually outed as having faked their craft. (Think finding out the handmade furniture you bought was actually made in a Vietnamese factory. The seller should merely have their reputation tarnished.)
Overall I see AI as the next step in search engine synthesis, info just needs to be properly credited to the original researchers and verified against other sources by the user. No different than Google or Wikipedia.

I’m not anti AI, but I wish the people who are would describe what they are upset about a bit more eloquently, and decipherable. The environmental impact I completely agree with. Making every google search run a half cooked beta LLM isn’t the best use of the worlds resources. But every time someone gets on their soapbox in the comments it’s like they don’t even know the first thing about the math behind it. Like just figure out what you’re mad about before you start an argument. It comes across as childish to me
- It feels like we're being delivered the sort of stuff we'd consider flim-flam if a human did it, but lapping it up bevause the machine did it.
  "Sure, boss, let me write this code (wrong) or outline this article (in a way that loses key meaning)!" If you hired a human who acted like that, we'd have them on an improvement plan in days and sacked in weeks.
  
  So you dislike that the people selling LLMs are hyping up their product? They know they’re all dumb and hallucinate, their business model is enough people thinking it’s useful that someone pays them to host it. If the hype dies Sam Altman is back in a closet office at Microsoft, so he hypes it up.
  I actually don’t use any LLMs, I haven’t found any smart ones. Text to image and image to image models are incredible though, and I understand how they work a lot more.
- But every time someone gets on their soapbox in the comments it’s like they don’t even know the first thing about the math behind it. Like just figure out what you’re mad about before you start an argument.
  The math around it is unimportant, frankly. The issue with AI isn't about GANN networks alone, it's about the licensing of the materials used to train a GANN and whether or not companies that used materials to train a GANN had proper ownership rights. Again, like the post I made, there's an easy argument to make that OpenAI and others never licensed the material they used to train the AI, making the whole model poisoned by copyright theft.
  There's plenty of uses of GANNs that are not problematic. Bespoke solution for predicting the outcomes of certain equations or data science uses that involve rough predictions on publically sourced statistics (or privately owned.) The problem is that these are not the same uses that we call "AI" today -- and we're actually sleeping on much better uses of neural networks by focusing on a pie in the sky AGI nonsense being pushed by companies that are simply pushing highly malicious, copyright infringing products to make a quick buck on the stock market.

Reduce global resource consumption with the goal of eliminating fossil fuel use. Burning nat gas to make fake pictures that everyone hates is just the worst.

If we're talking realm of pure fantasy: destroy it.
I want you to understand this is not AI sentiment as a whole, I understand why the idea is appealing, how it could be useful, and in some ways may seem inevitable.
But a lot of sci-fi doesn't really address the run up to AI, in fact a lot of it just kind of assumes there'll be an awakening one day. What we have right now is an unholy, squawking abomination that has been marketed to nefarious ends and never should have been trusted as far as it has. Think real hard about how corporations are pushing the development and not academia.
Put it out of its misery.
- How do you "destroy it"? I mean, you can download an open source model to your computer right now in like five minutes. It's not Skynet, you can't just physically blow it up.
  
  OP asked what people wanted to happen, and even later "destroy gen AI" as an option. I get it is not realistically feasible, but it's certainly within the realm of options provided for the discussion. No need to police their pie in the sky dream. I'm sure they realize it's not realistic.

I think the AI that helps us find/diagnose/treat diseases is great, and the model should be open to all in the medical field (open to everyone I feel would be easily abused by scammers and cause a lot of unnecessary harm - essentially if you can't validate what it finds you shouldn't be using it).
I'm not a fan of these next gen IRC chat bots that have companies hammering sites all over the web to siphon up data it shouldn't be allowed to. And then pushing these boys into EVERYTHING! And like I saw a few mention, if their bots have been trained on unauthorized data sets they should be forced to open source their models for the good of the people (since that is the BS reason openai has been bending and breaking the rules).
- That's what I'd like to see more of, too -- Use it to cure fucking cancer already. Make it free to the legit medical institutions, train doctors how to use it. I feel like we're sitting on a goldmine and all we're doing with it is stealing other people's intellectual property and making porn and shitty music.

I’d like for it to be forgotten, because it’s not AI.
- It is. Just not agi
- It's AI in so far as any ML is AI.
- Thank you.
  It has to come from the C suite to be "AI". Otherwise it's just sparkling ML.

Ruin the marketing. I want them to stop using the key term AI and use the appropriate terminology narrow minded AI. It needs input so let's stop making up fantasy's about AI it's bullshit in truth.
- The term artificial intelligence is broader than many people realize. It doesn't refer to a single technology or a specific capability, but rather to a category of systems designed to perform tasks that would normally require human intelligence. That includes everything from pattern recognition, language understanding, and problem-solving to more specific applications like recommendation engines or image generation.
  When people say something "isn't real AI," they’re often working from a very narrow or futuristic definition - usually something like human-level general intelligence or conscious reasoning. But that's not how the term has been used in computer science or industry. A chess-playing algorithm, a spam filter, and a large language model can all fall under the AI umbrella. The boundaries of AI shift over time: what once seemed like cutting-edge intelligence often becomes mundane as we get used to it.
  So rather than being a misleading or purely marketing term, AI is just a broad label we’ve used for decades to describe machines that do things we associate with intelligent behavior. The key is to be specific about which kind of AI we’re talking about - like "machine learning," "neural networks," or "generative models" - rather than assuming there's one single thing that AI is or isn't.
  
  All of this is permutation based coding don't bullshit me. AI is being used for an MLM scam.

I generally pro AI but agree with the argument that having big tech hoard this technology is the real problem.
The solution is easy and right there in front of everyone's eyes. Force open source on everything. All datasets, models, model weights and so on have to be fully transparent. Maybe as far as hardware firmware should be open source.
This will literally solve every single problem people have other than energy use which is a fake problem to begin with.

Not destroying but being real about it.
It's flawed like hell and feeling like a hype to save big tech companies, while the the enduser getting a shitty product. But companies shoving it into apps and everything, even if it degrades the user expierence (Like Duolingo)
Also, yes there need laws for that. I mean, If i download something illegaly i will nur put behind bars and can kiss my life goodbye. If a megacorp doing that to train their LLM "it's for the greater good". That's bullshit.

We're making the same mistake with AI as we did with cars; not planning human future.
Cars were designed to atrophy muscles, and polluted urban planning and the air.
AI is being designed to atrophy brains, and pollutes the air, the internet, public discourse, and more to come.
We should change course towards AI that makes people smarter, not dumber: AI-aided collaborative thinking.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-better-to-work-on-intelligence-augmentation-rather-than-artificial-intelligence/answer/Harri-K-Hiltunen

Honestly, at this point I'd settle for just "AI cannot be bundled with anything else."
Neither my cell phone nor TV nor thermostat should ever have a built-in LLM "feature" that sends data to an unknown black box on somebody else's server.
(I'm all down for killing with fire and debt any model built on stolen inputs,.too. OpenAI should be put in a hole so deep that they're neighbors with Napster.)

I want OpenAI to collapse.
- Many people with positive sentiments towards AI also want that.

More regulation, supervised development, laws limiting training data to be consensual.