Comparing these two technologies seems somewhat silly
Nothing like comparing a technology that took more than 10 years to get “released in the wild” and had several “killer apps” built using it very early on (email, instant messaging, web pages, online games) and many companies had no idea how to get money with it, vs. a “content generator” that is run almost entirely on promises of increased productivity and profit.
Search sucks now, LLMs are useful. Not as useful as tech companies claim it to be but yeah, most people will use it at some point.
If AI gave you an accurate correct answer 99% of the time would you use it to find the answer to questions quickly?
I would. I absolutely would, the natural language search of ai feels amazing for finding the answer to a question you have.
The current problem is that its not accurate and not correct at a high enough percentage. As soon as that reaches a certain point we’re cooked and AI becomes undeniable.
The two aren’t equivalent. One of them is an actual proven technology that definitively exists, the other one is still to prove itself.
It helps write emails and reviews and edits resumes. I have very little other use for it.
It also helps with tons of complex tasks in the sciences like finding new protein folding algorithms.
That right there is the problem with this discussion. They’re not even remotely similar technologies.
The ones doing protein folding are specialised limited capability AI. They are absolutely useful and very good at their jobs, but they are not the kind of AI that the public are using.
The public are using large language models and Diffusion-Based image generators. Not the narrow AI that you’re talking about.
AI is a superset of transformers which is then a superset of LLM’s. I think I’m making the same point as you, that in the broader sense “AI” can be useful.
Yeah, but internet was for the people for decades.
(And it didn’t really cost nature as much. Or stolen from the people so much - even by current laws LLM companies do that illegally.)“AIs” are getting their enshitification & monopolies pre-baked into their core bossiness models from the start.
Not to mention that AIs will definitely worsen inequalities all over the world (like assembly robots that replaced people but aren’t owned by people, and people still need to work 8h/day for decades for some reason).
(This but AI. I’m not saying, there aren’t/won’t be other jobs, just pointing out how this reshapes & concentrates wealth that on the other hands allows for slave wages with no prospects for full time jobs.)
If AIs will affect the world as much as the internet (and do so with peoples data), then they should be seen as core infrastructure - and government or non-profit owned.
Monetisation of all the things is killing us.
I think there is no possible world where people are without meaningful work and are happy about it. Even if they collected $10,000 a month and got to spend all of their time doing hobbies and spending time with family, it would feel pointless and hollow. Why have a family? Why raise children? Why do anything if there’s no struggle, if you’re not the one providing for your kids? I think if AI replaces humans in the workplace, even with UBI, humans would cease to exist shortly thereafter as our lives will have become meaningless
deleted by creator
Yes, I think people define themselves by their roles, especially men
You have a very limited view of what life should, or even can be.
It’s not a normative statement. I don’t necessarily think it’s good. I just don’t think people can be happy being useless
deleted by creator
You’re so right, how can I find meaning without making somebody else’s money for them? Woe is me…
It’s not about making money, it’s about contributing to society, supporting your family. Being useful
I think people would find new ways to struggle that they actually enjoy and would likely end up contributing. Imagine a couple of thousand people with their new modest but stress free budgets decide to join a yearly potato cannon contest, Sure its not going to invent anything new directly but you now have a bunch of people learning about ballistics and stoichiometry and high pressure engineering all egging eachother on to shoot that potato further. The competition gets more and more fierce and with the much lower stakes people start trying some more out there ideas, before you know it you have a modest but highly effective solution to reliably obtaining the correct gas mixture for something like a combined light gas gun.
And that’s a deliberately silly example, you’d get a ton more art, people deciding to be athletes, coders, all sorts of hobies that can encourage healthy competition and often benefit society in surprising ways.
Art and Coding would be seen as quaint in a world where AI can produce more of it faster and better than a human ever hoped. You’d know in the back of your mind that what you are doing is pointless
It’s the same sentiment towards immigrants that’s seen on the right.
The media have been running the exact same headlines. It feels weirdly like the corporate run media have an agenda to show us all the horrors of AI like they will take our jobs, they are going to collapse our society, they are a threat to our children, they contribute to organized crime. Same headlines every time.
I anticipate people here will be bothered by this statement just like if you say immigration isn’t really a big problem in r/conservative. The media is insidious. But I really think it’s a good opportunity to see how it shapes public opinion.
I find this false equivalence pretty disgusting.
That might actually reinforce my point
deleted by creator
That’s intentional. They sensationalize to desensitize. Unlike the introduction of computers or the internet, AI will absolutely take far more jobs than it will create. Goldman Sachs predicts a 50% reduction in US jobs by 2045, and Republicans added a provision into the budget reconciliation that prohibits any regulation on AI for a decade, to ensure that prosperity goes to the corporations.
I would have no problem getting anyone at r/conservative to pull up similar data points and statistics to show immigrants are taking jobs, contributing to crime statistics or any other claim. It’s very eerily similar to the emerging opinion on the left when compared to opinions on the right towards immigrants.
Regardless of validity of opinion. What I’m noticing is the role the media has played on shaping opinion and fed it.
deleted by creator
Absolutely not true. I find more often they use lots of statistics. That’s the whole facts over feelings thing.
deleted by creator