@dymaxion @cartocalypse Wow. š®š„ŗ
Tagged: reply
@kikebenlloch
It sometimes blows my mind to think back on how the first Desktop Publishing Software I used, powerful enough for producing print magazines, came on two 360KB floppy disks.
That's less than your average jpg image... š¤Æ
@peteriskrisjanis Very good point.
@cartocalypse
Yeah, itās not obvious how to relate all the figures to one another. The article you shared says āAround 2.4% of global CO2 emissions come from aviationā which is consistent with the data in the article I linked to as well.
Iāve not seen a āpercentage of global warmingā figure for the IT industry but when it comes to data centers, CO2 is also just one aspect of it. Mineral mining, transportation (including flights), deliveries to and from facilities, massive water consumption, etceteras. Itās certainly up there.
@gerrymcgovern Itās absolutely terrifying. Admiring your persistent efforts on shedding a light on this every day.
@ethicalrevolution Inspiring. I need to get a better hold of how my VPS is powered.
@wrenderlust
Exactly! It's like the human race keeps parodying itself.
@wir @linuxtage
Ah, good to know. I wasn't aware the PDF file suggested anything š
@wir @linuxtage Very cool to see! Thanks for pinging me and letting me know ā¤ļø
@Cloud68 @wir @linuxtage
Thanks, there is a PDF linked on that web page that should work I think?
@david_chisnall Interesting! Another reason to feel comfortable in the decision to not use Mastodon anymore ;) I wonder why they would have that design decisionā¦
@elhult
> One objective could be to generate text that is satisfying to customers. š¤·āāļø
Haha, fair enough. It struck me that they had that sentence because they expected AI to be more specific, my assumption being that this definition came into being before the LLMs did, but I'm not sure.
> I don't think the term AI is very good because it is too broad. The OECD definition has that problem too.
Definitely agree that the term AI is really just confusing, especially since there are so many different definitions going around. The EU AI Act being another example which has lots of words but which really boil down to "something automated by a computer".
> do you have any AI definition that you like?
Not really, for the same reasons. I think we should divide whatever AI covers into at least 2 or 3 different segments. The fact that "AI" is also used so extensively in science fiction really just means that it's destined to give people the wrong idea.
In Moral Codes, Alan Blackwell talks about 2 different kinds of AI:
"The first kind of AI used to be described as ācyberneticsā, or ācontrol systemsā when I did my own undergraduate major in that subject. These are automated systems that use sensors to observe or measure the physical world, then control some kind of motor in response to what they observe. [...]"
"The second kind of AI is concerned, not with achieving practical automated tasks in the physical world, but with imitating human behaviour for its own sake. The first kind of AI, while often impressive, is clever engineering, where objective measurements of physical behaviour provides all necessary information about what the system can do, and applying mentalistic terms like ālearningā and ādecidingā is poetic but misleading. The second kind of AI is concerned with human subjective experience, rather than the objective world."
This is a good start for understanding why the public discourse can be confusing. Especially when people point to the benefits of type 1 when one is critiquing type 2.
Source: https://moralcodes.pubpub.org/pub/1mn2q39n/release/6
@dcm
I was thinking from a user perspective that a tool like ChatGPT does not have a clear objective. But with the interpretation that the user has some sort of objective then everything does I suppose.
I was struck by how different a general-purpose chatbot is from an AI built for detecting anomalies in x-rays for example, where the objective is very clear. My assumption was then that the definition was once written with specific applications of machine learning in mind.
@elhult
Maybe it's just me but I don't get the impression that ChatGPT has an explicit or implicit objective for example.
@rrwo šššø
The fact that you are on floss.social made this response epic.
@timmymac Haha, exactly. Thatās identifying the real harms!
@ambivalena Ja, jag hade sjƤlv missat den i december sĆ„ det kƤndes plƶtsligt jƤtteviktigt att hjƤlpa den att fĆ„ spridning. š
@bigbro It's a closed session, which I also think is key to valuable and open conversations. But I definitely want to share more of takeaways and learnings on my blog later.
@julian Thank you for sharing. This is my experience as well... at least a year of sorting things out.
One of my takeaways is that online platforms will have lots of settings for memorializing accounts or deleting them completely. But they arenāt going to teach you how to download your content and make it available to your family in a sensible way.
It will actually be an open discussion as part of the session, what are designers' responsibilities. I'm also thinking of books, music, playlists that are likely to get lostā¦
People have of course been talking about these things for a long time but I don't see any clear answers.
Designers at least carry much of the weight of consent, information and communication. My reflection is that this can generally be done in a much better and more proactive way. And assume responsibility and talking about it more openly is a step forward.