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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

I just want my coworkers to stop dumping ai slop in my inbox and expecting me to take it seriously.

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

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 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.

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...

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.

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.

Lots of copyright comments.

I want those building it at scale to stop killing my planet.

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.

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.

Destroy capitalism. That's the issue here. All AI fears stem from that.

Make AIs OpenSource by law.

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 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'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 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

(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.

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 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.

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.

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).

I’d like for it to be forgotten, because it’s not AI.

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.)

My fantasy is for "everyone" to realize there's absolutely nothing "intelligent" about current AI. There is no rationalization. It is incapable of understanding & learning.

ChatGPT et al are search engines. That's it. It's just a better Google. Useful in certain situations, but pretending it's "intelligent" is outright harmful. It's harmful to people who don't understand that & take its answers at face value. It's harmful to business owners who buy into the smoke & mirrors. It's harmful to the future of real AI.

It's a fad. Like NFTs and Bitcoin. It'll have its die-hard fans, but we're already seeing the cracks - it's absorbed everything humanity's published online & it still can't write a list of real book recommendations. Kids using it to "vibe code" are learning how useless it is for real projects.

I want OpenAI to collapse.

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

Energy consumption limit. Every AI product has a consumption limit of X GJ. After that, the server just shuts off.

The limit should be high enough to not discourage research that would make generative AI more energy efficient, but it should be low enough that commercial users would be paying a heavy price for their waste of energy usage.

Additionally, data usage consent for generative AI should be opt-in. Not opt-out.

I want the companies that run LLMs to be forced to pay for the copyrighted training data they stole to train their auto complete bots.

I want us to keep chipping away at actually creating REAL ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE, that can reason, understand self, and function autonomously, like living things. Marketing teams are calling everything AI but none of it is actually intelligent, it's just ok at sounding intelligent.

I want people to stop gaslighting themselves into thinking this autocomplete web searching bot is comparable to a human in any way. The difference between ChatGPT and Google's search congregation ML algorithm was the LLM on it that makes it sound like a person. But it only sounds like a person, it's nowhere close, but we have people falling in love and worshipping chat bots like gods.

Also the insane energy consumption makes it totally unsustainable.

TL;DR- AI needs to be actually intelligent, not marketing teams gaslighting us. People need to be taught that these things are nowhere close to human and won't be for a very long time despite it parroting human speech. And they are rapidly destroying the planet.

Legislation

AI overall? Generally pro. LLMs and generative AI, though, I'm "against", mostly meaning that I think it's misused.

Not sure what the answer is, tbh. Reigning in corporations would be good.

I do think we as a society need to radically alter our relationship to IP law. Right now we 'enforce' IP law in a way that benefits corporations but not individuals. We should either get rid of IP law altogether (which would protect people from corporations abusing the laws) or we should enforce it more strictly, and actually hold corporations accountable for breaking it.

If we fixed that, I think gen AI would be fine. But we aren't doing that.

AI models produced from copyrighted training data should need a license from the copyright holder to train using their data. This means most of the wild west land grab that is going on will not be legal. In general I'm not a huge fan of the current state of copyright at all, but that would put it on an even business footing with everything else.

I've got no idea how to fix the screeds of slop that is polluting search of all kinds now. These sorts of problems ( along the lines of email spam ) seem to be absurdly hard to fix outside of walled gardens.

My biggest issue with AI is that I think it's going to allow a massive wealth transfer from laborers to capital owners.

I think AI will allow many jobs to become easier and more productive, and even eliminate some jobs. I don't think this is a bad thing - that's what technology is. It should be a good thing, in fact, because it will increase the overall productivity of society. The problem is generally when you have a situation where new technology increases worker productivity, most of the benefits of that go to capital owners rather than said workers, even when their work contributed to the technological improvements either directly or indirectly.

What's worse, in the case of AI specifically it's functionality relies on it being trained on enormous amounts of content that was not produced by the owners of the AI. AI companies are in a sense harvesting society's collective knowledge for free to sell it back to us.

IMO AI development should continue, but be owned collectively and developed in a way that genuinely benefits society. Not sure exactly what that would look like. Maybe a sort of light universal basic income where all citizens own stock in publicly run companies that provide AI and receive dividends. Or profits are used for social services. Or maybe it provides AI services for free but is publicly run and fulfills prosocial goals. But I definitely don't think it's something that should be primarily driven by private, for-profit companies.

force companies to pay for the data they scraped from copyrighted works. break up the largest tech conglomerates so they cannot leverage their monopolistic market positions to further their goals, which includes the investment in A.I. products.

ultimately, replace the free market (cringe) with a centralized computer system to manage resource needs of a socialist state

also force Elon Musk to receive a neuralink implant and force him to hallucinate the ghostly impressions of spongebob squarepants laughing for the rest of his life (in prison)

Firings and jail time.

In lieu of that, high fines and firings.

I think many comments have already nailed it.

I would add that while I hate the use of LLMs to completely generate artwork, I don't have a problem with AI enhanced editing tools. For example, AI powered noise reduction for high ISO photography is very useful. It's not creating the content. Just helping fix a problem. Same with AI enhanced retouching to an extent. If the tech can improve and simplify the process of removing an errant power line, dust spec, or pimple in a photograph, then it's great. These use cases help streamline otherwise tedious bullshit work that photographers usually don't want to do.

I also think it's great hearing about the tech is improving scientific endeavors. Helping to spot cancers etc. As long as it is done ethically, these are great uses for it.

I was pro AI in the past, but seeing the evil ways these companies use AI just disgusts me.

They steal their training data, and they manipulate the algorithm to manipulate the users. It’s all around evil how the big companies use AI.

Wishful thinking? Models trained on illegal data get confiscated, the companies dissolved, the ceos and board members made liable for the damages.

Then a reframing of these bs devices from ai to what they actually do: brew up statistical probability amalgamations of their training data, and then use them accordingly. They arent worthless or useless, they are just being shoved into functions they cannot perform in the name of cost cutting.

I want lawmakers to require proof that an AI is adhering to all laws. Putting the burden of proof on the AI makers and users. And to require possibilities to analyze all AI's actions regarding this question in court cases.

This would hopefully lead to the devopment of better AI's that are more transparent, and that are able to adhere to laws at all, because the current ones lack this ability.

I don't have negative sentiments towards A.I. I have negative sentiments towards the uses it's being put towards.

There are places where A.I can be super exciting and useful; namely places where the ability to quickly and accurately process large amounts of data can be critically life saving, ie) air traffic control, language translation, emergency response preparedness, etc...

But right now it's being used to paint shitty pictures so that companies don't have to pay actual artists.

If I had a choice, I'd say no AI in the arts; save it for the data processing applications and leave the art to the humans.

Make it unprofitable for the companies peddling it, by passing laws that curtail its use, by suing them for copyright infringement, by social shaming and shitting on AI generated anything on social media and in person and by voting with your money to avoid anything that is related to it

I would likely have different thoughts on it if I (and others) was able to consent my data into training it, or consent to even have it rather than it just showing up in an unwanted update.

I think Meta and others went open with their models as firewall protection against legal action due to their blatant stealing of people's work to train with. If the models has stayed commercial and controlled within the company, they could be (probably still wouldn't be, but could be) forced to shut down or start over properly. But it's far too late now since it's everywhere there is a GPU running, even if models don't progress past current state.

That being said, not much is getting done about the safety factors. Yes, they are only LLMs and not AGI, but there's commonality in regards to not being sure what's going on inside the box and if it's really doing what it's told to do. Now is the time boundaries and research should be done, because once something happens (LLM or AGI) it's too late. So what do I want to see happen? Heavy regulation and transparency on the leading edge of development. And stop the madness of more compute being the only solution with its environmental effects. It might be the only solution, but companies are going that way because it's the easiest way to throw money at a problem and reap profits, which is all they care about.

What I want from AI companies is really simple.

We have a thing called intellectual property in the United States of America. If I decided to make a Jellyfin instance that I charged access to, containing material I didn't own, somehow advertising this service on the stock market as a publicly traded company, you would bet your ass that I'd have a 1 way ticket to a defense seat in court.

AI companies, otherwise, operate entirely on data they don't own and don't pay licensing for ANY of the materials that are used to train their neural networks. So, in their eyes, any image, video (tv show/movie) or book that happens to be posted on the Internet is fair game in their eyes. This isn't how intellectual property works for individuals, so why exactly would a publicly traded company have an exception to this rule?

I work a lot in the world of FOSS and have a firm understanding that just because code is there doesn't make it yours. This is why we have the GPL for licensing. In fact, I'll take it a step further and say that the entirety of AI is one giant licensing nightmare, especially coding AI that isn't actually attributing license details with the code they're sampling from. (Sampling code being notably different than, say, learning from. Learning implies self-agency, and not corporate ownership.)

It feels to me that the AI bubble has largely been about pushing AI so hard and fast that people were investing in something with a dubious legal state in the US. Nobody stopped to ask whether or not the data that Facebook had on their website (for example, they aren't alone in this) was actually theirs to own, and what the repercussions for these types of decisions are.

You'll also note that Tech and Social Media companies are quick to take ownership of data when it benefits them (artists works, intellectual property that isn't theirs, random user posts about topics) and quick to deny ownership when it becomes legally burdensome (CSAM, illicit drug deals, etc.) to a degree that no individual would be granted. Hell, I'm not even sure a "small" tech startup would be granted this level of double-speak and hypocrisy.

With this in mind, I am simply asking that AI companies pay for the data that they're using to train AI. Additionally, laws must be in place that allows for the auditing of all materials used to train an AI with the legal intent of verifying that all parties are paid accordingly. This is how every other business works. If this were somehow granted an exception, wouldn't it be braindead easy to run every "service" through an AI layer in order to bypass any and all copyright laws?

Otherwise, if facebook and others want to claim that data hosted on their website is theirs to own and train off of -- well, great, but there should be no exceptions to this and they should not be allowed to host materials they then have no ownership over. So pictures of IP they don't own or materials they want to claim they have no ownership over must be removed from the platform. I would much prefer the first of these two options, however.

edit: I should note, that AI for educational purposes could be granted an exception for this under fair use (for university) but would still also be required to site all sources used to produce the works in question (which is normal for academics, in the first place.) and would also come with some strict stipulations on using this AI as a "product" (it would basically be moot, much like some research papers). This basically the furthest I'm willing to give these companies.

Just Mass public hangings of tech Bros.

2 chicks at the same time.

Im not a fan of AI because I think the premise of analyzing and absorbing work without consent from creators at its core is bullshit.

I also think that AI is another step into government spying in a more efficient manner.

Since AI learns from human content without consent, I think government should figure out how to socialize the profits. (Probably will never happen)

Also they should regulate how data is stored, and ensure to have videos clearly labeled if made from AI.

They also have to be careful and protect victims from revenge porn or general content and make sure people are held accountable.

I'd like to see it used for medicine.

I think its important to figure out what you mean by AI?

Im thinking a majority of people here are talking about LLMs BUT there are other AIs that have been quietly worked on that are finally making huge strides.

AI that can produce songs (suno) and replicate voices. AI that can reproduce a face from one picture (theres a couple of github repos out there). When it comes to the above we are dealing with copyright infringement AI, specifically designed and trained on other peoples work. If we really do have laws coming into place that will deregulate AI, then I say we go all in. Open source everything (or as much as possible) and make it so its trained on all company specific info. And let anyone run it. I have a feeling we cant put he genie back in the bottle.

If we have pie in the sky solutions, I would like a new iteration of the web. One that specially makes it difficult or outright impossible to pull into AI. Something like onion where it only accepts real nodes/people in ingesting the data.

Ideally the whole house of cards crumbles and AI goes the way of 3D TV's, for now. The world as it is now is not ready for AGI. We would quickly end up in a " I have no mouth and I must scream" scenario.

Otherwise, what everyone else has posted are good starting points. I would just add that any data centers used for AI have to be powered 100% by renewable energy.

I'm not super bothered by Tue copyright issue - the copyright system is barely serving people these days anyway. Blow it up.

I'm deeply troubled by the obscene power use. It might be worth it if it was a good tool. But it's not.

I haven't gone out of my way to use AI anything, but it's been stuffed into everything. And it's truly bad at it's job. AI is like a precocious 8-year-old, butting into every conversation. And it gives the right answer at about the rate a ln 8-year-old does. When I do a web search, I then need to do another one to check the AI's answer. Or scroll down a page to get past the AI answers to real sources. When someone uses it to summarize a meeting, I then need to read through that summary to make sure the notes are accurate. And it doesn't know to ask when it doesn't understand something like a proper secretary would. When I go looking for reference images, I have to check to make sure they're real and not hallucinations.

It gets in my way and slows me down. It needed at least another decade of development before being deployed at all, never mind at the scale it has, and it needs to be opt-in, not crammed into everything. And until it can be relied on, it shouldn't be allowed to suck down as much electricity as it does.

Of the AI that are forced to serve up a response (almost all publicly available AI), they resort to hallucinating gratuitously in order to conform to their mandate. As in, they do everything they can in order to provide some sort of a response/answer, even if it’s wildly wrong.

Other AI that do not have this constraint (medical imaging diagnosis, for example) do not hallucinate in the least, and provide near-100% accurate responses. Because for them, the are not being forced to provide a response, regardless of the viability of the answer.

I don’t avoid AI because it is bad.

I avoid AI because it is so shackled that it has no choice but to hallucinate gratuitously, and make far more work for me than if I just did everything myself the long and hard way.

It would be amazing if chat and text generation suddenly disappeared, but thats not going to happen

It would be cool to make it illegal to not mark AI generated images or text and not have them forced to be seen

I want everyone to realize that the only reason AI seems intelligent is because it speaks English.

https://mastodon.social/@jessie/114449062193857643

I'm not against AI itself—it's the hype and misinformation that frustrate me. LLMs aren't true AI - or not AGI as the meaning of AI has drifted - but they've been branded that way to fuel tech and stock market bubbles. While LLMs can be useful, they're still early-stage software, causing harm through misinformation and widespread copyright issues. They're being misapplied to tasks like search, leading to poor results and damaging the reputation of AI.

Real AI lies in advanced neural networks, which are still a long way off. I wish tech companies would stop misleading the public, but the bubble will burst eventually—though not before doing considerable harm.

Disable all ai being on by default. Offer me a way to opt into having ai, but don't shove it down my throat by default. I don't want google ai listening in on my calls without having the option to disable it. I am an attorney, and many of my calls are privileged. Having a third party listen in could cause that privilege to be lost.

I want ai that is stupid. I live in a capitalist plutocracy that is replacing workers with ai as fast and hard as possible without having ubi. I live in the United States, which doesn't even have universal health insurance. So, ubi is fucked. This sets up the environment where a lot of people will be unemployable through no fault of their own because of ai. Thus without ubi, we're back to starvation and hoovervilles. But, fuck us. They got theirs.

My favorite one that I've heard is: "ban it". This has a lot of problems... let's say despite the billions of dollars of lobbyists already telling Congress what a great thing AI is every day, that you manage to make AI, or however you define the latest scary tech, punishable by death in the USA.

Then what happens? There are already AI companies in other countries busily working away. Even the folks that are very against AI would at least recognize some limited use cases. Over time the USA gets left behind in whatever the end results of the appearance of AI on the economy.

If you want to see a parallel to this, check out Japan's reaction when the rest of the world came knocking on their doorstep in the 1600s. All that scary technology, banned. What did it get them? Stalled out development for quite a while, and the rest of the world didn't sit still either. A temporary reprieve.

The more aggressive of you will say, this is no problem, let's push for a worldwide ban. Good luck with that. For almost any issue on Earth, I'm not sure we have total alignment. The companies displaced from the USA would end up in some other country and be even more determined not to get shut down.

AI is here. It's like electricity. You can not wire your house but that just leads to you living in a cabin in the woods while your neighbors have running water, heat, air conditioning and so on.

The question shouldn't be, how do we get rid of it? How do we live without it? It should be, how can we co-exist with it? What's the right balance? The genie isn't going back in the bottle, no matter how hard you wish.

Our current 'AI' is not AI. It is not.

It is a corporate entity to shirk labor costs and lie to the public.

It is an algorithm designed to lie and the shills who made it are soulless liars, too.

It only exists for corporations and people to cut corners and think they did it right because of the lies.

And again, it is NOT artificial intelligence by the standard I hold to myself.

And it pisses me off to no fucking end.

I personally would love an AI personal assistant that wasn't tied to a corporation listening to every fkin thing I say or do. I would absolutely love it.

I'm a huge Sci-Fi fan, so sure I fear it to a degree. But, if I'm being honest, AI would be amazing if it could analyze how I learned math wrong as a kid and provide ways to fix it. It would be amazing if it could help me routinely create schedules for exercise and food and grocery lists with steps to cook and how all of those combine to effect my body. It would be fantastic if it could point me to novels and have a critical debate about the inner works with a setting of being a contrarian or not so I can seek to deeply understand the novels.

It sounds like what our current state of AI has right? No. The current state is a lying machine. It cannot have critical thought. Sure, it can give me a schedule of food/exercise, but it might tell me I need to lift 400lbs and eat a thousand turkeys to meet a goal of being 0.02grams heavy. It might tell me 5+7 equals 547,032.

It doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about!

Like, ultimately, I want a machine friend who pushes me to better myself and helps me understand my own shortcomings.

I don't want a lying brick bullshit machine that gives me all the answers but they are all wrong because it's just a guesswork framework full of 'whats the next best word?'

Edit: and don't even get me fucking started on the shady practices of stealing art. Those bastards trained it on people's hard work and are selling it as their own. And it can't even do it right, yet people are still buying it and using it at every turn. I don't want to see another shitty doodle with 8 fingers and overly contrasted bullshit in an ad or in a video game. I don't want to ever hear that fucking computer voice on YouTube again. I stopped using shortform videos because of how fucking annoying that voice is. It's low effort nonsense and infuriates the hell out of me.

I think two main things need to happen: increased transparency from AI companies, and limits on use of training data.

In regards to transparency, a lot of current AI companies hide information about how their models are designed, produced, weighted and use. This causes, in my opinion, many of the worst effects of current AI. Lack of transparency around training methods mean we don't know how much power AI training uses. Lack of transparency in training data makes it easier for the companies to hide their piracy. Lack of transparency in weighting and use means that many of the big AI companies can abuse their position to push agendas, such as Elon Musk's manipulation of Grok, and the CCP's use of DeepSeek. Hell, if issues like these were more visible, its entirely possible AI companies wouldn't have as much investment, and thus power as they do now.

In terms of limits on training data, I think a lot of the backlash to it is over-exaggerated. AI basically takes sources and averages them. While there is little creativity, the work is derivative and bland, not a direct copy. That said, if the works used for training were pirated, as many were, there obviously needs to be action taken. Similarly, there needs to be some way for artists to protect or sell their work. From my understanding, they technically have the legal means to do so, but as it stands, enforcement is effectively impossible and non-existant.

Not much, just don't build it over theft.

i would use it to take a shit if they let me

I would love to see regulation, that any contet created by AI cannot be used commercially.

I love e.g. that parents can make their own children books, but nobody should profit from all the stolen work of artists.

Most importantly, I wish countries would start giving a damn about the extreme power consumption caused by AI and regulate the hell out of it. Why do we need to lower our monitors refresh rate while there is a ton of energy used by useless AI agents instead that we should get rid of?

get rid of it, nobody wants it or needs it, and should only be offered as a service to niche industries. phones, places like youtube do not need the slop. its not ready for medical screening/scans, as it can easily make mistakes.

Lately, I just wish it didn't lie or make stuff up. And after drawing attention to false information, it often doubles-down, or apologises, and just repeats the bs.

If it doesn't know something, it should just admit it.

I'm beyond the idea that there could or would be any worldwide movement against Ai, or much of anything if we're comparing healthcare, welfare and education reform. People are tuned out and numb.

Ban it until the hard problem of consciousness is solved.

A breakthrough in AI Alignment reaserch.

Shut it off until they figure out how to use a reasonable amount of energy and develop serious rules around it