That’s absurd. The majority know it harms society, yet the majority use the thing that’s harming society.
That’s probably the same with people who use cars.
Sell your car, ride a bike, and don’t use AI.
Every time a study like this gets published, the number gets smaller. You’d think the people pushing AI would learn that everyone fucking hates them already.
They don’t care as long as the government bucks roll in
Everyone hates them yet almost everyone uses them
No I fucking don’t.
Use it or hate it?
They don’t give us a choice. They put that shit in everything, and then they say “the analytics say they’re using it!”
Not just that but it seems the majority are using it as a search engine. That and lots of companies force employees to use it at work
It’s objectively true though. It’s terrible for society no matter how it turns out. If the dreams of the AI bros come true, then the only way companies like OpenAI are profitable is if millions of people lose their jobs. And we know just how good we are at taking care of displaced workers. Look at the Rust Belt to see how good we are at taking care of folks once their whole career path is made obsolete.
And if those dreams don’t come to pass? If all these companies fail? Well they’re going to take the whole economy down with them. It’s a bubble big enough to cause a major recession. If this all collapses, then everyone is going to be hit, regardless of what field you work in or investments you have.
Pew notes that while younger Americans are using AI the most, they’re not viewing AI more positively. In fact, those aged 18-29 were the most skeptical, with 48% saying AI will have a negative impact on society
What about the people less than 18?
It’s the 10 year olds being given smartphones who grow up with AI that I’m most worried about.
Do they know the risks? Are they being educated?
It’s the 10 year olds being given smartphones who grow up with AI that I’m most worried about.
Like Coca-Cola machines in schools or even cigarettes, get ‘em hooked when they’re young.
I don’t remember the last time I read about something that was happening on a societal scale that the majority of Americans wanted or thought would be a positive change.
Back in the early days (and by that I mean years) of Facebook, as well as the ipod era of Apple, Americans (and most of the world really) were head over heels about those companies
I remember reading so many “articles” on how great the world would be if we just handed Jobs the keys to everything
See Jobs was such an instrumental part in creating all this, even though I have no clue what he would’ve thought about today’s tech world. I don’t think much of him because ultimately he was a salesman and an asshole but will concede he was a brilliant conman or marketing mind depending on the perspective, but that’s actually the root of the issue in the tech space over the past 15-20 years, it’s all just marketing now that’s running the show and in many ways it’s specifically because of Jobs influence although there are a lot of other contributing agents.
There was a brilliant technical mind that might could’ve steered this ship the way a lot of us thought it would in the mid 00s, unfortunately Aaron Swartz didn’t make it. Shame what could’ve been
Jobs was quite possibly the best marketer of the last … call it five decades. He invented things that we take so for granted today that we literally don’t believe that he invented them; that they were always there. (Vendor-mandated, standardized, in-store demos of computers were him, for example.)
But with that comes a very dark side. Marketing done right is not evil. But it is oh so easy to slip into dark marketing techniques and Jobs didn’t just slip into them, he jumped head-first from the 5m board into them, then swam around inventing new ones. And that is, unfortunately, a great portion of his legacy and impact today: inventor of many, many, many dark marketing approaches.
oh 100%… look at aln the “geniuses” CEOs unable to make a Keynote presentation that is not a copy of Jobs’
Same clothes, same stages, same theatrics
We’ve been through enough tech change in the last couple decades that overpromised and severely underperformed or became a nightmare. I’m surprised that 16% hold on to the idea that it might be good when we know that if it actually works, it will be used as a weapon just like everything else.
I’m surprised that 16% hold on to the idea that it might be good…
don’t put faith in an article that fails to show their source. that 16% could come with a 5-8% error rate meaning it’s more like 8-11%, or worse the numbers are all made up. can’t say because they failed to include a link to the study.
It is a great technology that is based on the agglomerate of all human knowledge. It’s a pity it’s in the wrong hands.
It is by no means based on the aggregate of all human knowledge. It is based on the aggregate of all human knowledge that techbrodudes could easily rip off on the Internet.
There are enormous swaths of material that is not incorporated into them. There are likely entire LANGUAGES that are under-represented if not flatly absent from the training data. Approximately 50% to 70% or even beyond (depending on the specific analyses involved) of the training material pulled into LLMs, according to the Allen Institute, is in English. About 17% of the planet speaks English. “All human knowledge” indeed. There are approximately 7000 living languages on the planet. The best of the LLMs barely cover 50 of them to any degree of linguistic or cultural competence. (I know ChatGPT claims coverage of 80+ languages. I’ve also seen its unfortunate attempts at the outlying ones…)
And then there is a whole lot of knowledge and information in print form which is not yet incorporated. As a trivial example of this, the very important book in tea production and consumption circles, 中国茶经 (not to be confused with the ancient classic 茶经), is not available in any electronic form anywhere. Its encyclopedic coverage of the fractally complicated Chinese tea sphere is not in any LLM anywhere. Books of this calibre number in the thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, and are not in any LLM anywhere. This means that if you query an LLM about tea, you’re going to get the amalgamated opinions of dumbasses on Reddit instead of authoritative sources like 中国茶经.
(And I’m not even going to start going down the epistemic rabbit warren of non-textual knowledge. Go ahead and ask your LLMbecile what it feels like when the clay is too wet on the wheel, or how to read a hostile room before negotiations. It will generate text … but what is the source of the physicality and instinct? It has none. It regurgitates what some dumbass on Reddit said.)
You’re right, but I was hoping people wouldn’t take my comment literally :) It’s not ALL human knowledge, obviously. But if it was a tool from humans to humans, instead of from companies to make money of, we could add more and more of our global knowledge to it and have more to win from the tool.
I also am fully aware that this tool is not applicable to EVERY situation, and everyone should also be aware of this.
It’s a technological dead end. Neural Networks are much more promising in the long run
LLMs are neural networks my man
No, they’re not.
LLMs are neural networks my man
No, they’re not.
MIT’s McGovern Institute disagrees with you: https://mcgovern.mit.edu/2023/03/27/smart-bots-what-language-models-like-chatgpt-tell-us-about-intelligence-and-the-human-brain/
Developed by the company OpenAI, ChatGPT is an example of a deep neural network, a type of machine learning system that has made its way into virtually every aspect of science and technology.
The University of Michigan disagrees with you: https://online.umich.edu/collections/artificial-intelligence/short/what-is-generative-ai-what-are-llm/?playlist=ai-foundations
Large language models refer to the use of deep neural network [sic] to predict the next word, and these models are large in the sense that they have billions, or hundreds of billions of parameters.
Surveys of academic literature disagree with you: https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2412.03220v1
These models far exceed the complexity of conventional neural networks, often encompassing dozens of neural network layers and containing billions to trillions of parameters.
Are you sure this is the hill you want to die on, Sparky?
I’m afraid they are
Whatever you say, Dunning-Krueger
Don’t let a google search stop ya
