You can’t defend your position because it’s emotional exaggeration. Now you’re lashing out and being insulting.

My whole point is that they aren’t the same and you keep saying “let’s treat them as if they were”, then you use it in comparisons and act like a child when I point out how silly that is.

Clarify what you mean. Take the gun out of the conversation and stop bringing it up. Stop being disingenuous. Don’t be a baby.

I put them both in the category of things that need regulation in a way that rope does not

My whole point since the beginning is that this is dumb, hence my comment when you essentially said shooting projectiles and saying bad things were the same. Call me when someone shoots up a school with AI. Guns and AI are clearly not in the same category.

And yes, I think people should be able to talk to their chatbot about their issues and problems. It’s not a good idea to treat it as a therapist but it’s a free country. The only solution would be massive censorship and banning local open source AI, when it’s very censored already (hence the need for jailbreak to have it say anything sexual, violent or on the subject of suicide).

Think for a second about what you are asking and what it implies.

I’ve seen maybe 4 articles like this vs the hundreds of millions that use it everyday. I think the ratio of suicide vs legitimate use of rope is higher actually. And no, being told bad things by a jailbroken chatbot is not the same as being shot.

The difference is that guns were built to hurt and kill things. That is literally the only thing they are good for.

AI has thousands of different uses (cue the idiots telling me its useless). Comparing them to guns is basically rhetoric.

Do you want to ban rope because you can hang yourself with it? If someone uses a hammer to kill, are you going to throw red paint at hammer defenders? Maybe we should ban discord or even lemmy, I imagine quite a few people get encouraged to kill themselves on communication platforms. A real solution would be to ban the word “suicide” from the internet. This all sounds silly but it’s the same energy as your statement.

I should have specified it was an earlier llama model. They have scaled up to more then a flight or two. You are mostly right except for how much a house uses. It’s about 10,500 kW per year, you’re off by a thousand. It uses in an hour about 8 hours of house time, which is still a lot though, specially when you consider musks 1 million gpus.

https://kaspergroesludvigsen.medium.com/facebook-disclose-the-carbon-footprint-of-their-new-llama-models-9629a3c5c28b

Their first model took 2 600 000 kwh, a plane takes about 500 000. The actual napkin math was 5 flights. I had done the math like 2 years ago but yeah, I was mistaken and should have at least specified it was for their first model. Their more recent ones have been a lot more energy intensive I think.

If Ukraine comes out and says it’s a lie, I will readily believe them. That being said, it is fucking stupid to assume and brush off any criticism as lies.

No one should be flying drones near nuclear plants

I did some quick math with metas llama model and the training cost was about a flight to Europe worth of energy, not a lot when you take in the amount of people that use it compared to the flight.

Whatever you’re imagining as the impact, it’s probably a lot less. AI is much closer to video games then things that are actually a problem for the environment like cars, planes, deep sea fishing, mining, etc. The impact is virtually zero if we had a proper grid based on renewable.