It’s because AI is bad for society.
Fun thing about Capitalism though, dollars = votes. So the minority with all the dollars get to make all the decisions, and the poor masses are forced to live with them.
Free Luigi
The divide is growing, too. If this continues, we will be crouched naked in a puddle of piss and broken glass, weeping and eating worms, while the rich fly high above us in their private jets. Their only interactions with the poor will be when they molest our children or harvest our organs.
Good news, I dont have kids and my organs will surely kill them more quickly.
just get bit by a rabid animal before donating, apparently you can give rabies through organ transplants.
with a lot of propaganda in the news and social media that is.
The technology has a few use cases where it is appropriate and useful. It’s the braindead MBA narcissism that wants to shove it everywhere and replace everyone that is the real problem. That’s the existential threat, not AI per se.
Yeah 2 out of 100 headlines about LLMs are worth getting excited about. Like uses in developing new drugs, diagnosing cancers — that sort of thing.
My c-suite disagrees. They cannot shut the fuck up about AI.
Middle management is at most danger of being replaced by AI. The C suite will also shrink rapidly, along with their salaries.
Middle management is heavily using ai for pretty much all emails as far as I can tell. Mine suddenly started sending way more emails, and they didn’t previously have full sentences…
IMO they don’t need to be replaced with ai, the whole concept of middle management can go in the bin. Boomer/xoomer jobs program (derogatory).
There used to be a need to make and filter powerpoints on their way up to the board. AI got rid of that function.
It is how they are going about it that rustles my Jimmies.
Everyone is getting free sledgehammer. They will be delivered to your home at a time of our choosing in the method of our choosing. Property damage is a known side effect, but we hold no liability. Sidenote, your electrical bill and water bill will be going up tremendously to offset the tax breaks we’ve been alloted to harvest the lumber and ore to manufacture the sledgehammer.
Also, sledgehammer might take your job. We’ll see.
Whoa human hate anything that harming their livelihood, neighborhood , hood, what a novelty idea indeed.
To be honest, I was initially in favour of the emergence of AI, but the more I use it, the more disillusioned I become. Rather than feeling like an intelligent system, it often seems rigid, lacking in genuine understanding and designed to serve the needs of only certain groups. At times, I even find it less reliable than a conventional search engine. Perhaps the real disappointment is not that AI has failed to meet every expectation, but that something presented as a remarkable leap forward can still feel so far removed from genuine intelligence.
It is less reliable than a conventional search engine. It’s lied to me before. It’s just quicker and easier than chasing down links and reading through stuff to get the info you need.
And at the same time over 90% of chinese think it’s good for society. Something something late stage capitalism?
Any idea why they think it’s good?
I assume it’s got something to do with their higher education, intelligence and social cohesion. And good looks.
Ha ha, very funny.
Seriously, what benefits do they see, or are they just blind to the problems?
57% of Americans think AI is bad for society, 66% oppose new data centers, and Silicon Valley’s response is to build more data centers so AI can explain why the public is wrong. Apparently »democratizing AI« means giving billionaires the power to ignore democracy at industrial scale.
we gotta up those numbers
I’m all over this multi-dimensional spectrum…
I think AI is terrible for society; at least how society is currently structured. I also think society is terrible for AI.
The reason AI sucks, and the reason we’re even calling this tier of ML “AI” to begin with, is because of global capitalism’s incentives. And the reasons “AI” is bad for society is because our society is globally capitalist. From jobs, to loneliness, to disinformation, to the environment, to education, to the lack of critical thinking,… Everything AI makes worse is already weakened by our societal systems, and they incentivize using AI to further degrade them in order to expand, control, and extract.
I love AI and the world, in theory. I hate AI and the world for how they exist right now.
Indeed. Capitaism is the cancer that destroys all the potential good in all things.
It’s hilarious that people think this same shit wouldn’t happen under any other socioeconomic system. Humans are greedy. THAT is the problem.
It is beyond capitalism now, it is corporatism turning into neo-feudalism. Some may argue that capitalism inevitably has to follow this path. I am not sure about that, but unregulated capitalism combined with large scale centralized representative democracy probably does.
It’s an invented, made-up industry that is not necessary. The people may be suckers for a sale but they’re not fools.
AI is a symptom, its not the root of the problem. If AI had popped up in a time where the common persons wellbeing was prioritised it would be hailed as miraculous.
We have a political problem, dont let the foreground distract you.
deleted by creator
The phrase “in its current form/implementation” is doing quite a lot of work there, how the technology is implemented is the topic. That’s whether it’s primarily used to replace workers (not that I think it capable of that in earnest right now) and maximise profits, or to reduce workloads, improve services and make people’s lives easier, and those are largely a question of political and economic priorities.
The fact that people can use a tool badly, or become overly dependent on it, doesn’t mean the tool is inherently harmful. You could make similar arguments about calculators, GPS, the internet or countless other technologies we’ve incorporated into everyday life. I’ve always had a naturally good sense of direction, I don’t think GPS ruined the world by helping people who don’t.
I also don’t see how restricting access to a tiny group of specialists is supposed to improve matters. Surely concentrating the benefits of a powerful technology in the hands of a privileged few would make some of the problems we’re discussing way worse?
Nothing changes if we waited another five years, imo. Efficiency and reliability will presumably improve, but if the same economic incentives remain, those improvements can just as easily be used to displace more workers and concentrate more wealth.
That’s really all i’m saying above. We can argue about the limitations of the technology all day, but if we don’t address the systems determining how it’s deployed and who benefits from it, we’re missing a much bigger part of the problem. It’s akin to renovating a house while ignoring that it’s built on a lake of custard.
deleted by creator
I find this perspective quite difficult to reconcile with my own experience. I’ve saved countless hours using AI, solved problems I wouldn’t previously have known how to approach, and used it to venture into areas well outside my existing skill set, often learning a great deal in the process. So when you insist it’s useless, destroys critical thinking and erodes skills, I can’t help but feel you’re demonstrating a lack of imagination about how it can actually be used, along with a bit of doomerism.
If you’re blindly accepting everything it tells you and outsourcing all your thinking to it, I can see how that might be detrimental. But that’s one way of using it. You can just as easily use it to explore unfamiliar subjects, interact with complicated concepts, challenge your assumptions and develop skills you didn’t previously have. These are largely questions of education and critical thinking, and teaching people how to evaluate information and use tools responsibly is invaluable whether LLMs exist or not. We could honestly use a bit of motivation to push this harder don’t you think?
Again, the environmental costs and concerns about cognitive dependency are valid, but neither establishes that the technology has no utility. Likewise, the enormous financial losses of some AI companies raise serious questions about their business models, but you’re making the common mistake of confusing that with whether the technology itself is economically viable. The cost of running models at comparable levels of capability has fallen enormously in a handful of years, and there’s no reason to expect that to suddenly cease.
Your argument here conflates three different questions: whether AI is useful, whether the current industry is financially sustainable, and whether its widespread adoption is benefiting society. These are related, but fundamentally different questions with potentially very different answers, and you seem more interested in dismissing all three outright than examining them individually.
And once again, several of your criticisms concern corporate behaviour and economic incentives, which is precisely what my original comment was about. Others are legitimate questions about the technology’s limitations and how people use it. But you’re lumping all of these together as though they demonstrate that AI is fundamentally useless, when they don’t. A technology can have serious limitations, be deployed irresponsibly and still offer enormous practical value.
Lol ai cuck
Absolutely embarrassing level of discourse.
Go find a headline to get mad at sheep.
“Discourse” 😭
Buddy I am just insulting you for being an ai cuck
Sure, but fighting AI is also a fight against these corpos and unfettered capitalism.
I understand this perspective, I believe. Greed, dehumanization and prioritizing profits over communities are some of the worst elements of the AI situation and hardly unique to it. That suggests AI is just one example of a larger political problem.
But AI is also uniquely bad on its on terms. It is a fundamentally unreliable technology. It is rooted in plagiarism and requires unethical practices to build, to maintain and to use. It is environmentally disastrous. It is mentally damaging, creating cognitive debt in those that use it for many tasks. It is damaging and insulting to artists. It creates a specific, if not yet fully understood, psychosis in certain at risk individuals.
LLMs, and more accurately the corporate drive for its sudden mass adoption, is exemplary of corporate greed and reckless companies trying to stick working class people with the bill for their terrible bet. It is exemplary of the eternal folly of people to want confirmation of their own biases rather than actual info. But its also a technological dead end built from shady and unreliable practices at the expense of our world and the people in it.
A lot of these are the distractions imo, they take problems with how AI is currently developed and deployed and treat them as inherent properties of the technology itself. A lot of these criticisms have been repeated so often they’ve become accepted wisdom in certain circles, despite not standing up particularly well to scrutiny. You’ve also raised quite a few of them in a relatively short space, without much supporting argument, so addressing them properly is inevitably going to take a much longer response. Apologies in advance but bear with me if you care about the topic at all.
“Fundamentally unreliable” is an increasingly outdated way of viewing LLMs given how much they’ve improved in fairly short order. There’s no denying the fact they can be wrong, but reliability is entirely task-dependent. AI might be poor at specific factual verification while being extremely useful for programming, accessibility, education, brainstorming or countless other applications. It’s a tool, and how useful it is depends enormously on what you’re using it for and how well you understand its limitations. Dismissing an entire technology because it performs poorly at certain tasks is an arbitrarily narrow way of evaluating it.
“Rooted in plagiarism” confuses training on existing material with reproducing it. There are legitimate copyright and consent issues, but that doesn’t make the technology itself plagiarism. Likewise, there’s a big difference between pointing out unethical practices in the AI industry and claiming that the technology fundamentally depends on them. You’ve demonstrated neither why those practices are unavoidable nor why they couldn’t be addressed. If you want to point out a company that’s done something unethical, entirely valid, that’s not the same thing as saying the technology cannot exist ethically, that’s nonsense.
Re artists, fully agree there are legitimate concerns about compensation, consent and displacement, but I don’t think the existence of AI generated art inherently devalues human creativity. Much of the damage here comes down to how the technology is commercialised and regulated, which ties into my comment above.
The environmental costs are real, but you’ve not attempted to weigh them against the benefits, so you could be saying that about any polluting technology. You’ve used one to write this to me. You probably used one to get to work this morning. There might be one keeping your house the correct temperature. New technologies are very often relatively inefficient in their early stages, I doubt you’ll struggle to imagine prior examples of that, and LLMs have already become significantly more computationally efficient in the few years since their mainstream introduction, as has the hardware. That obviously doesn’t negate their environmental impact, particularly as demand continues to grow, but treating today’s resource requirements as an inherent, permanent characteristic of the technology is shortsighted.
That’s a regulation issue. Ireland put in some rules last year that any new data centre had to also install enough solar to cover it’s entire demand and connect it to the grid. More of the world needs to be doing shit like that. If they want to profit, they need to earn it.
The cognitive debt research you mentioned is preliminary and task specific, and evidence of AI reinforcing delusions in vulnerable individuals doesn’t mean that the technology generally causes psychological harm, and it’s hardly the first technology capable of that. Books can do that, tv, social media, not to mention 4chan. That’s another regulation issue, safeguarding. Similarly, AI reinforcing people’s existing biases is a legitimate concern, but that’s not really unique to AI. Algorithms have been doing that for years, and AI can equally be used to challenge people’s assumptions, depending on how it’s designed and used.
The corporate greed, labour displacement, reckless investment and the concentration of wealth are serious concerns, and the core part of why I think the political and economic context surrounding AI matters so much, and that leads me into to the thing that drives me to argue any of these points. The chances of the technology going away are essentially zero, there is absolutely no point in talking about that. It’s a fantasy. You’d need a solar flare or a global revolution, most of us cant even revolt against being reigned by overt paedophiles. There is far more value in talking about how to mitigate the issues around it, because that is actually plausible.
I just think you’re making a big leap from identifying problems with AI, some perfectly legitimate, to concluding that the technology itself is fundamentally bad. And calling it a “technological dead end” seems especially strange given how much it’s improved in just a few years. I don’t see how you’ve arrived at that conclusion, or why you’d be confident these problems are impossible to address.
It’s worth comparing AI to previous ‘technological revolutions’. They brought enormous benefits alongside serious social disruption, exploitation and unintended consequences. How those benefits and harms were distributed depended massively on the political and economic systems surrounding them. There’s no reason to look at AI any differently.
I appreciate that we’re probably not going to agree on this, but you put some effort into your response, so I thought it deserved a proper one in return.
Meh. People would still use it to cheat on homework so they can spend 16 hours a day watching AI-generated brainrot.
An age legislation issue and a capitalistic over-reach issue. Algorithms are fucking people’s minds, no argument there. AI is just more fuel on an existing fire that nobody profiting from it wants to do anything about.
Oh, billionaires are bad for society. AI is their dream tool for controlling working class masses and getting even richer.
I think their sick fantasy is replacement theory, but instead of whatever the far right thinks that is, they will attempt to replace the human workers that generate income and taxes 1:1 with robots. So they will have an obedient army of slave, just like they always wanted.
I’d be totally cool with that, provided that they be required to provide a comfortable living for every citizen before taking their profits. If they want to use their profits for substantial UBI, and give us all a permanent vacation, I’m all for it.
But we all know that’s not how Sociopathic Oligarchs think.
They’re discovering that this iteration of robots are way more expensive than human beings. Even well-paid, well-benefitted human beings. Data centers burn through a lot of expensive microchips quickly, and that cost is passed downstream to compute costs.
The hyperscalers are way under-charging for tokens and are hemorrhaging money, even as they borrow more for the data center buildout.
(I anticipate this desperation is what is driving the shenanigans and foul play regarding permitting and environment maintenence issues driving districts to moratorium buildout in their area. athe finance sector is notorious for overplaying their valuation and then turning to crime when they’ve borrowed over their head.)
Maybe as a society, we’ll learn to treat financial fraud as severe as it is, instead of deciding it’s too complicated to govern.
“AI is going to kill us all”
“AI is so powerful, it will hack everything”
"Why don’t you like AI?
I wouldn’t say AI itself is bad for society, but billionaires and this current AI gold rush is.
Ai isn’t inherently bad. It’s just bad to have it in a society where your ability to get food, housing, and medical care are inherently attached to you having a job, which AI is marketed as replacing. Also, all the art that was stolen.
