Yay real information

Thanks; nice write up.

Really reaching for news arent we?

What proposal? I dont know what you are talking about.

I want truth.

Yep there might be plenty we disagree with regarding their investments and their affect on the environment but we are just lying to ourselves to say people arent making a living due to some of those investments, having our lives enriched, and generally benefitting us in ways we would demand to keep if they were all magically erased.

Kind of useless to talk about this in any way to come to a sentimental conclusion though because we arent looking at a distribution of data to inform us what generates the most environmental impact and how much value we actually get from it each investment. Its just a big ambigious number until we look into it. Which we wont. Because nobody here actually cares enough.

I mean most people are guilty of trying to discuss a topic based on the post title. But if you want to throw shade you should check your work.

Thats their investments, not their personal use. According to your source anyway.

Lolll read the article

People in this thread: sensible

Interesting. What is the chance a nuclear plant goes boom? Sounds legit.

And that fraud is specifically rampant because of ai… so if companies arent using ai to combat it then they would never be able to keep up.

So many twists and turns here!

Its alright i wasnt going to tell anyone i knew the best energy solution after reading lemmy comments. I haven’t voted at all in this thread.

Nuclear definitely has a ton of commitment. It takes like 60 years to decommission one right?

Whoa real information

This is a pretty fucking stupid comment lmao

What the hell are you talking about?

Maybe true. But if we have increased energy demand it might as well be nuclear.

Halting ai development might be nice according to many people, but we cant make that happen. Fraud alone is magnitudes more rampant. Its here to stay and we have to deal with it. I think this is a big win.

When your worldview is made up of article thumbnails and the sun is simply too bright to bother.

ty

I want to be constructive so:

Please consider the unintentional disinformation people create when they try to sound like they know what they are talking about. Contributing to discussion is difficult on complex topics.

Its perfectly natural to want to continue a conversation to the point where you might fill in some details instead of researching a topic or not responding. But this is seriously harmful in the age of disinformation. Theres plenty i dont know. But there are tools expressly created to identify ai content to avoid using it in model training. The consequence of using synthetic data is the only topic in the article you are commenting on. Either read the article or please dont feel like you need to come up with a response.

Cant blame me for asking :)

Seems like tools to recognize ai content to prevent synthetic input avoids model degredation.

If those tools are up to the task then i would agree it probably doesnt hinder model training. Not sure what the reality is, or if the need for those tools creates a barrier to entry for a significant portion of those trying to create models with internet-crawled data.

By chance, is that based on other peoples succinct social media comments on ai?