- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Techbros are on the nose and they are driving this AI distortion to the point where it will break society and the world economy. Machine learning and neural networks were seen as great potential before they perverted them as AI.
These stats real like everyone’s thinking, “AI is bad for people. Not me, I mean stupid people who with weak willpower. Not like me.”
No one likes anything forced down their throat. Especially when there is no specific, tangible reason for it. “Increase your productivity” means nothing anymore.
Oh there are “specific, tangible reasons,” and they’re all trying to pretend it’s not, but we all know it is:
There are two reasons:
-
To replace as many disgusting human workers as possible, and keep their paychecks as increased profits.
-
To surveil us in literally everything we do, force us to live by their standards, and punish us if we don’t comply.
Those are literally the only things the Sociopathic Oligarchs want from AI, and we KNOW it, and that’s why we hate it.
To surveil us in literally everything we do
Best throw out that smartphone.
-
I haven’t met a single person whose productivity has been increased by it. Either they already realised It’s wasting their time, or they haven’t realised yet.
If my productivity goes up, it means I get more money or can work fewer hours, right?
AI would be overwhelmingly embraced if this was the case. Even a basic income program would have made it palpable.
I’d say it’s increased my productivity in general. I’d also say “incredible numbers” is a ridiculous exaggeration being propagated by people not too interested in the truth.
Well I have never met you so what I said is still true :)
It’s not the people don’t like AI it’s just that it’s not very good (pretty sure we’re supposed to have super intelligent AGI by now according to the original timelines), it shoved into everything, it’s an environmental disaster on steroids, living within 10 miles of data centre is a horrible experience, and it’s made buying a new computer financially impossible. Take your pic of reasons.
Plus I’m fed up of listening to scientifically illiterate tech bros talking about data centres in space. Might as well build a Dyson swarm while they’re at it, it would probably be easier.
AI is encouraged at work but not enforced.
Managers don’t talk about forcing its use at all here.
I think in two months the one time it was mentioned in a meeting was someone putting company info into a public AI instead of the secure self hosted one. That was idiotic of them especially considering our proxy is setup to display a splash page warning with company policy before continuing to public LMM services.
It’s a perfect stance for a company. There’s no token tracking, incentive or demerit for the use of AI. Just announcements on proper use and providing secure resources. They want to protect IP (Intellectual Property).
That said I tried using it to code as a accelerator. Claude did the job but it’s not consistent. I had to go back and debug some code and there’s no consistency in it’s coding sections. It’s hard to read through and therefore hard to maintain.
I resorted to providing example code for it to follow and it still adds extra bullshit.
Maybe I need to get better at prompting but it’s really just faster to code myself.
The Internet user in this stock photo was quoted saying
“suck it!”
You may have dated yourself with that D-Generation X reference.
And we’re dating ourselves by understanding it.
Well obviously.
You guys are dating?
“we’re dating ourselves”
It has nothing to do of the fact that it’s constantly being shoved and pushed down our throats by some of the worst human beings imaginable, wanting to maximize profits at the expense of humanity itself.
Billionaire technocrats pitch “AI will cure cancer and free humanity” but instead this shit steals jobs, creates poverty, abuses natural resources and rapes our privacy.
Fuck AI, it was always about helping ascend the elite to an untouchable place.
And they’re taking the human, creative jobs in a lot of ways. Not the menial jobs that many would probably rather vanish given a proper social safety net like UBI. They’re taking the jobs that define our culture and society. The artists, musicians, writers, those that entertain us in general, are having an increasingly hard time because some derivative AI slop costs a company pennies. “Derivative” being a very nice word for “stolen from these artists in the first place…”
In other words, AI is displacing the exact kind of avenues many humans would prefer if they had the time. Okay, got the rant out of my system for now…
Welcome!
Thats not really measuring people turning against AI because they still use AI. Look at the other usage numbers theyre cooked. Its just people emoting one way and acting another very American.
Yeah, man. Jobs now require you to use them and health insurance is predicated on you having a job. Yet again, the American oligarchs can force their way, regardless of what we want.
You dont actually believe that do you?
Yes, I do. I’m living it, man
I dont believe you but if I accept that as true youve got to be 0.0000001% of the population who is actually being forced. Even within the tech sector whole tech sector not just big tech its suggested and its encouraged but you arent forced plenty of engineers choose not to use AI. Outside of tech nobody being “forced” to use AI.
These are slop articles that write everyone is using it one day and nobody is using it the next. Its hype not reflecting the reality for most people.
The people in this survey “worrying” about AI are using it aren’t forced at thier job to do so. They likely choose to use it day to day because its quite convenient. Thats why it rings so hollow. I’m there are some who are skeptical and avoiding it and they are respectable.
Here’s the Pew article instead of the journalistic swill Futurism publishes.
Futurism.com seems like an internet equivalent of those supermarket tabloids.
This is so much more informative than that article, and as a bonus the site is actually usable.
Pretty much any time a news article cites public opinion it’s better to go to the primary sources or become very skeptical if they don’t provide a link to the survey data. It’s just a different purpose to convey the info without the sensationalism and manufactured perspective.
I started reading an article yesterday on a prominent international news source via rss about American opinions on the war and negotiations with Iran talking about majority public opinion as fact. I scanned through the rest of the article and there was no actual data, and only at the end did it state it was an op-ed written by a lobbyist and strategic advocacy employee. The web page had opinion written on the top but the feed just had it at the bottom.
MORE
the 30-49 year olds and the 50-and-up brackets are more closely aligned, at 39 percent and 37 percent respectively viewing it as negative.
I’m really surprised at the 30–49 bracket being at 39%. But, keep in mind there’s a huge gap in tech savviness and tech lifestyle between someone born in 1977 to someone born in 1996. Their impressionable years kicked off literally at opposite ends of the Digital/Tech revolution, so I guess that makes sense that way…
The difference between the 65+ bracket and the 50-64 bracket in the original data is larger than the gap between 50-64 and 30-49 on every chart I’ve examined so far (where they’re broken out by age), so the real break is at retirement. Which makes sense: retirees are less likely to be forced into proximity with LLMs whether they want to be or not. (Interestingly, the older demographics are also less likely to think they have enough control over interactions with “AI”.)
I’m in the middle of that bracket and am extremely negative about “AI” (LLMs, LDMs). I, and people born before me, grew up with technology. I sat on an Atari 1040 ST when I was 3 or 4. There’s some stuff in the field of AI that’s really exciting, like, for example, neural networks trained for pattern recognition to identify cancerous growths in early stages with much higher reliability than humans. LLMs and LDMs are not that kind of useful technology. I know how LLMs work and so I know that the intersection between their advertised and actual capabillity is tiny. There’s no I in AI when it comes to LLMs. Yet they’re the biggest investment bubble of all time. That bubble is going to pop when the average investor comes to the inevitable conclusion, that the technology cannot deliver on its promises. Until that economic catastrophy happens, it’s fucking us in other ways on the way: wasting resources, negative impact on climate change, mental attrition (in those who rely on “AI”), depletion of seniority in all kinds of fields (using LLMs instead of training juniors), contributes to shifting of money to the capitalists, … What’s not to hate about “AI”? If anything my “tech savviness” makes me hate it more than the “unsavvy”.
I’m on the low end and have heard nothing but distain for AI (aside from “cool chatbot, but why?” or experimenting with local LLMs to find useful use cases). I have also run a local LLM but I just don’t see the use case. Even for coding most of the effort goes into solving the problem, so if it is already solved in your head it isn’t gonna take much time to code it. An no, LLMs can’t solve the problem any better than stackoverflow could (good luck on the novel problems).
Oh and don’t forget to mention that LLM providers are currently socialising the losses of their exorbitant investments through “creative” IPOs with immediate listing in indices.
*Always Been
It will be the end of us. Reminds me of that episode of The Orville. Humans made the robots on a planet and they were mean to them, then the robots killed them all and took over. Pretty much the terminator situation.
