The people who hate "AI" are correctly understanding it as a political project, not simply a technology. Ali Alkhatib's definition here is clarifying in this regard: https://ali-alkhatib.com/blog/defining-ai
This was clarifying? It reads like a sleepy undergrad's first attempt, complete with the constant meandering to satisfy some word count. The irony is a SOTA AI could make this person's case far more succinctly and convincingly. You really need to hold yourself (and the people you read) to a higher standard.
This entire brain dump of a blog post could be summed up in one famous sentence: Man is a political animal.
I never understand people who seem to have a need to grasp at such poorly written blogs for an understanding of today's affairs. Humans have really been remarkably consistent in their nature. The answer to your question has already been written, maybe even centuries ago by someone who thought about this a lot harder than you. Sometimes it feels like LLMs are so good simply because most people are far less interesting than they think they are. At some level humanity has been asking the same fundamental questions since the dawn of civilization. At a certain point what more does the average person have to say that we haven't already heard before?
To me this just muddies the waters further. If I run a model on my own hardware am I working with the "AI" political project?
I would agree that there is a political project happening in the AI space (and that it predates modern AI); I think it's worth giving that political project a distinct name, rather than conflating a term already widely used and understood very differently by normal people.
> If I run a model on my own hardware am I working with the "AI" political project?
No. Obviously, what you do on your PC is inconsequential to the rest of society. But despite this, AI and its consequences in big tech have become so thoroughly linked because the entities that develop and profit off of AI use are so big and influential over the rest of us. The hobbyist space isn't what people even think about.
Is it really that common? I know it exists, but everywhere I go I hear of everyone paying for enterprise subscriptions, the implications that LLM usage rates have for businesses, companies burning through allotted tokens, the use of cutting-edge models. From my impression, local models (especially so for image generators) were the domain of the hobbyists and only a small slice of corporate use.
Exactly no one hates the ai algorithm finding cancer, or predicting protein folding or finding novel compounds for pharmaceuticals what they hate is the "we will slurp up all human knowledge violate everyone copyrights and give nothing back in return and get you fired and replaced by a shitty ai chatbot"
This entire brain dump of a blog post could be summed up in one famous sentence: Man is a political animal.
I never understand people who seem to have a need to grasp at such poorly written blogs for an understanding of today's affairs. Humans have really been remarkably consistent in their nature. The answer to your question has already been written, maybe even centuries ago by someone who thought about this a lot harder than you. Sometimes it feels like LLMs are so good simply because most people are far less interesting than they think they are. At some level humanity has been asking the same fundamental questions since the dawn of civilization. At a certain point what more does the average person have to say that we haven't already heard before?