US experts who work in artificial intelligence fields seem to have a much rosier outlook on AI than the rest of us.
In a survey comparing views of a nationally representative sample (5,410) of the general public to a sample of 1,013 AI experts, the Pew Research Center found that “experts are far more positive and enthusiastic about AI than the public” and “far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years” (56 percent vs. 17 percent). And perhaps most glaringly, 76 percent of experts believe these technologies will benefit them personally rather than harm them (15 percent).
The public does not share this confidence. Only about 11 percent of the public says that “they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life.” They’re much more likely (51 percent) to say they’re more concerned than excited, whereas only 15 percent of experts shared that pessimism. Unlike the majority of experts, just 24 percent of the public thinks AI will be good for them, whereas nearly half the public anticipates they will be personally harmed by AI.
Butlerian Jihad
I mean, it hasn’t thus far.
It’s not really a matter of opinion at this point. What is available has little if any benefit to anyone who isn’t trying to justify rock bottom wages or sweeping layoffs. Most Americans, and most people on earth, stand to lose far more than they gain from LLMs.
Everyone gains from progress. We’ve had the same discussion over and over again. When the first sewing machines came along, when the steam engine was invented, when the internet became a thing. Some people will lose their job every time progress is made. But being against progress for that reason is just stupid.
I’m not sure at this point. The sewing machine was just automated stitching. It is more similar to Photos and landscape painters, only it is worse.
With the creative AI basically most of the visual art skills went to “I’m going to pay 100$ for AI to do this instead 20K and waiting 30 days for the project”. Soon doctors, therapists and teachers will look down the barrel. “Why pay for one therapy session for 150 or I can have an AI friend for 20 a month”.
In the past you were able to train yourself to use sewing machine or learn how to operate cameras and develop photos. Now I don’t even have any idea where it goes.AI is changing the landscape of our society. It’s only “destroying” society if that’s your definition of change.
But fact is, AI makes every aspect where it’s being used a lot more productive and easier. And that has to be a good thing in the long run. It always has.
Instead of holding against progress (which is impossible to do for long) you should embrace it and go from there.
AI makes every aspect where it’s being used a lot more productive and easier.
AI makes every aspect where it’s being used well a lot more productive and easier.
AI used poorly makes it a lot easier to produce near worthless garbage, which effectively wastes the consumers’ time much more than any “productivity gained” on the producer side.
Are you a trust fund kid or something
Are you a poor kid or something? Like what kind of question even is this? Why does it even need to be personal at all? This thread is not about me…
And no. I’m not. I stand to inherit nothing. I’m still a student. I’m not wealthy or anything like that.
Because you write like you think this can’t reach you, like you’re always going to have food and shelter no matter what happens.
If it reaches me, so be it. That’s life. Survival of the fittest. It’s my own responsibility to do the best in the environment I live in.
The worry is deeper than just different changes in production. Not all progress is good, think of the broken branches of the evolution.
The fact that us don’t teach kids how to write already took a lot of different childhood development and later brain development and memory improvement out of the run.
Qith ai now drawing, writing and music became a single sentence prompt. So why keep all those things? Why literally waste time developing a skill that you can not sell? Sure for fun…
And you are bringing up efficiency. Efficiency is just a buzzword that big companies are using to replace human labor. How much more efficient is a bank where you have 4 machine and one human teller? Or a fast food restaurant where the upfront employee just delivers the food to the counter and you can only place order with a computer.
There is a point where our monkey brains can’t compete and won’t be able to exist without human to human stuff. But I don’t need to worry in 2 years we will be not able to differentiate between ai and humans. And we can just fake that connection for the rest of our efficient lifes.
I’m not against improving stuff, but qhere this is focused won’t help us in the long run…That’s the first interesting argument I’m reading here. Glad someone takes an honest stance in this discussion instead of just “rich vs poor”, “but people will lose jobs” and some random conspiracies in between.
To your comment: I agree with your sentiment that AI will make it challenging for new brains to evolve as solving difficult tasks is a problem we will encounter much less in the future. I actually never thought about it that way. I don’t have a solution for that. I think it will have two outcomes: humans will lose intelligence, or humans will develop different intelligence in a way that we don’t understand yet today.
And you are bringing up efficiency. Efficiency is just a buzzword that big companies are using to replace human labor. How much more efficient is a bank where you have 4 machine and one human teller? Or a fast food restaurant where the upfront employee just delivers the food to the counter and you can only place order with a computer.
I disagree with that. Efficiency is a universal term. And humanity has always striven to do things more efficient because it increases the likelihood of survival and quality of life in general. It’s a very natural thing and you cannot stop it. Much as you cannot stop entropy. Also, I think making things more efficient is good for society. Everything becomes easier, more available, and more fun. I can see a far future where humans no longer need to work and can do whatever they want with their day. Jobs will become hobbies and family and friends are what you care about most.
I do not agree that efficiency is good.
If its is good, we would live like we keep pigs and chickens in meat farms. More efficient is to eat bug based protein, and why waste time on eating instead of 100% meal replacement foods.
Why keep people with disabilities or with different “colors of skin” (insert any other thing there) from the most “efficient” ones?
The best way to think is Matrix-esqe pods for humans and living in a simulation.
Only bad part of that picture is that we are not needed at all.And these are the dark points of unlimited change.
We all know capitalism is very bad for the majority. We know big money do not care about marginalized groups. These are all just numbers. And at the end you and I we are all numbers that can be cut. I’m probably not going to be alive, but I hope for a bright future for the upcoming generations. The problem is that I do see AI potentially darkening their skies.
Don’t get me wrong AI can be a great tool if you learn how to use it. But the benefits are not going to be in the people hands.We need a general society overhaul where not the profit is the only thing that matters. Efficiency is good when you burn renewable wooden pellets and you want to get the most out of the chemical reaction. Efficiency is good when you are using the minimum amount of material to build something (with 3x oversized safety measures). But efficiency in AI and in social terms are going to be a problem.
Humans will not have worry free lives in current society. All the replaced labor keeps the earnings in the stockholders hands. But this went really far from AI. Sorry for the rant, but I do worry for the future.
I believe blindly accepting something before even attempting to look into the pitfalls not a great idea. And we never see all the pitfalls coming.
I use AI for programming questions, because it’s easier than digging 1h through official docs (if they exists) and frustrating trial and error.
However quite often the ai answers are wrong by inserting nonsense code, using for instead of foreach or trying to access variables that are not always set.
Yes it helps, but it’s usually only 60% right.
I used to do this, but not anymore. The amount of time I have to spend to verify it and correct it sometimes takes longer than if I were just to do it myself, and the paranoia that comes with it isn’t worth the time for me anymore.
Machine stitching is objectively worse than hand stitching, but… it’s good enough and so much more efficient, so that’s how things are done now; it has become the norm.
Good enough is the keyword in a lot of things. That’s how fast fashion got this big.
The current drive behind AI is not progress, it’s locking knowledge behind a paywall.
As soon as one company perfects their AI, it will draw everyone to use it, marketing it as ‘time saver’ so you don’t have to do anything (including browsing the web, which is in decline even now). Just ask and you shall receive everything.
Once everyone gets hooked, and there won’t be any competiton left, they will own the population. News, purchase recommendations, learning, everything we do to work on our congitive abilities will be sold through a single vendor.
Suddenly you own the minds of many people, who can’t think for themselves, or search for knowledge on their own… and that’s already happening.
And it’s not the progress I was hoping to see in my lifetime.
What progress are you talking about?
We don’t know it yet. I can’t see the future and you neither. But you cannot question the fact that AI has made a lot of things more efficient. And efficiency always brings progress in one way or the other.
And as someone who has extensively set up such systems on their home server… yeah it’s a great google home replacement, nothing more. It’s beyond useless on Powerautomate which I use (unwillingly) at my job. Copilot can’t even parse and match items from two lists. Despite my company trying its damn best to encourage “our own” (chatgpt enterprise) AI, nobody i have talked with has found a use.
AI search is occasionally faster and easier than slogging through the source material that the AI was trained on. The source material for programming is pretty weak itself, so there’s an issue.
I think AI has a lot of untapped potential, and it’s going to be a VERY long time before people who don’t know how to ask it for what they want will be able to communicate what they want to an AI.
A lot of programming today gets value from the programmers guessing (correctly) what their employers really want, while ignoring the asks that are impractical / counterproductive.
You’re using it wrong then. These tools are so incredibly useful in software development and scientific work. Chatgpt has saved me countless hours. I’m using it every day. And every colleague I talk to agrees 100%.
I’ll admit my local model has given me some insight, but in researching more of something, I find the source it likely spat it out from. Now that’s helpful, but I feel as though my normal search experience wasn’t so polluted with AI written regurgitation of the next result down, I would’ve found the nice primary source. One example was a code block that computes the inertial moment of each rotational axis of a body. You can try searching for sources and compare what it puts out.
If you have more insight into what tools, especially more i can run local that would improve my impression, i would love to hear. However my opinion remains AI has been a net negative on the internet as a whole (spam, bots, scams, etc) thus far, and certainly has not and probably will not live up to the hype that has been forecast by their CEOs.
Also if you can get access to powerautomate or at least generally know how it works, Copilot can only add nodes seemingly in a general order you specify, but does not connect the dataflow between the nodes (the hardest part) whatsoever. Sometimes it will parse the dataflow connections and return what you were searching for (ie a specific formula used in a large dataflow), but not much of which seems necessary for AI to be doing.
I think a lot depends on where “on the curve” you are working, too. If you’re out past the bleeding edge doing new stuff, ChatGPT is (obviously) going to be pretty useless. But, if you just want a particular method or tool that has been done (and published) many times before, yeah, it can help you find that pretty quickly.
I remember doing my Masters’ thesis in 1989, it took me months of research and journals delivered via inter-library loan before I found mention of other projects doing essentially what I was doing. With today’s research landscape that multi-month delay should be compressed to a couple of hours, frequently less.
If you haven’t read Melancholy Elephants, it’s a great reference point for what we’re getting into with modern access to everything:
I’ve found it primarily useless to harmful in my software development, making the work debugging poorly-structured code the major place that time is spent. What sort of software and language do you use it for?
If you were too lazy to read three Google search results before, yes… AI is amazing in that it shows you something you ask for without making you dig as deep as you used to have to.
I rarely get a result from ChatGPT that I couldn’t have skimmed for myself in about twice to five times the time.
I frequently get results from ChatGPT that are just as useless as what I find reading through my first three Google results.
You’re using it wrong. My experience is different from yours. It produces transfer knowledge in the queries I ask it. Not even hundreds of Google searches can replace transfer knowledge.
Then you must know something the rest of us don’t. I’ve found it marginally useful, but it leads me down useless rabbit holes more than it helps.
I’m about 50/50 between helpful results and “nope, that’s not it, either” out of the various AI tools I have used.
I think it very much depends on what you’re trying to do with it. As a student, or fresh-grad employee in a typical field, it’s probably much more helpful because you are working well trod ground.
As a PhD or other leading edge researcher, possibly in a field without a lot of publications, you’re screwed as far as the really inventive stuff goes, but… if you’ve read “Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman!” there’s a bit in there where the Manhattan project researchers (definitely breaking new ground at the time) needed basic stuff, like gears, for what they were doing. The gear catalogs of the day told them a lot about what they needed to know - per the text: if you’re making something that needs gears, pick your gears from the catalog but just avoid the largest and smallest of each family/table - they are there because the next size up or down is getting into some kind of problems engineering wise, so just stay away from the edges and you should have much more reliable results. That’s an engineer’s shortcut for how to use thousands, maybe millions, of man-years of prior gear research, development and engineering and get the desired results just by referencing a catalog.
My issue is that I’m fairly established in my career, so I mostly need to reference things, which LLMs do a poor job at. As in, I usually need links to official documentation, not examples of how to do a thing.
That’s an engineer’s shortcut for how to use thousands, maybe millions, of man-years of prior gear research, development and engineering and get the desired results just by referencing a catalog.
LLMs aren’t catalogs though, and they absolutely return different things for the same query. Search engines are tells catalogs, and they’re what I reach for most of the time.
LLMs are good if I want an intro to a subject I don’t know much about, and they help generate keywords to search for more specific information. I just don’t do that all that much anymore.
Everyone gains from progress.
It’s only true in the long-term. In the short-term (at least some) people do lose jobs, money, and stability unfortunately
That’s true. And that’s why so many people are frustrated. Because the majority is incredibly short-sighted unfortunately. Most people don’t even understand the basics of economics. If everyone was the ant in the anthill they’re supposed to be we would not have half as many conflics as we have.
being against progress for that reason is just stupid.
Under the current economic model, being against progress is just self-preservation.
Yes, we could all benefit from AI in some glorious future that doesn’t see the AI displaced workers turned into toys for the rich, or forgotten refuse in slums.
We are ants in an anthill. Gears in a machine. Act like it. Stop thinking in classes “rich vs. poor” and conspiracies. When you become obsolete it’s nobody’s fault. This always comes from people who don’t understand how this world economy works.
Progress always comes and finds its way. You can never stop it. Like water in a river. Like entropy. Adapt early instead of desperately forcing against it.
Man it must be so cool going through life this retarded. Everything is fine, so many more things are probably interesting….lucky
Your comment doesn’t exactly testify intelligence yourself.
You might want to elaborate on some arguments actually relate to the comment you’re responding to.
Its just going to help industry provide inferior services and make more profit. Like AI doctors.
AI is mainly a tool for the powerful to oppress the lesser blessed. I mean cutting actual professionals out of the process to let CEOs wildest dreams go unchecked has devastating consequences already if rumors are to believed that some kids using ChatGPT cooked up those massive tariffs that have already erased trillions.
Yet my libertarian centrist friend INSISTS that AI is great for humanity. I keep telling him the billionaires don’t give a fuck about you and he keeps licking boots. How many others are like this??
How many others are like this??
Far too many: more than zero.
I used to be that dumb. I was about 22 at the time
Life isn’t always Occam’s Razor.
I would agree with that if the cost of the tool was prohibitively expensive for the average person, but it’s really not.
It‘s too expensive for society already as it has stolen work from millions to even be trained with millions more to come. We literally cannot afford to work for free when the rich already suck up all that productivity increase we‘ve gained over the last century.
I disagree. While intellectual property legally exists, ethically there’s no reason to be protective of it.
Information should be a shared resource for everyone, and all these open weights models are a good example of that in action.
Prepare to die on that hill I guess because this couldn‘t be further of what is happening right now. Copyright exists but only for top oligarchs.
When Miyazaki said the AI ghiblifier is an affront to art, I couldn’t help but think that before WW1, tanks were called an affront to horsemanship.
He said it was an affront to life itself.
My bad. At least that doesn’t change my point as tanks are that too.
Depends on what we mean by “AI”.
Machine learning? It’s already had a huge effect, drug discovery alone is transformative.
LLMs and the like? Yeah I’m not sure how positive these are. I don’t think they’ve actually been all that impactful so far.
Once we have true machine intelligence, then we have the potential for great improvements in daily life and society, but that entirely depends on how it will be used.
It could be a bridge to post-scarcity, but under capitalism it’s much more likely it will erode the working class further and exacerbate inequality.
Machine learning? It’s already had a huge effect, drug discovery alone is transformative.
Machine learning is just large automated optimization, something that was done for many decades before, but the hardware finally reached a power-point where the automated searches started out-performing more informed selective searches.
The same way that AlphaZero got better at chess than Deep Blue - it just steam-rollered the problem with raw power.
As long as open source AI keeps up (it has so far) it’ll enable technocommunism as much as it enables rampant capitalism.
I considered this, and I think it depends mostly on ownership and means of production.
Even in the scenario where everyone has access to superhuman models, that would still lead to labor being devalued. When combined with robotics and other forms of automation, the capitalist class will no longer need workers, and large parts of the economy would disappear. That would create a two tiered society, where those with resources become incredibly wealthy and powerful, and those without have no ability to do much of anything, and would likely revert to an agricultural society (assuming access to land), or just propped up with something like UBI.
Basically, I don’t see how it would lead to any form of communism on its own. It would still require a revolution. That being said, I do think AGI could absolutely be a pillar of a post capitalist utopia, I just don’t think it will do much to get us there.
It will only help us get there in the hands of individuals and collectives. It will not get us there, and will be used to the opposite effect, in the hands of the 1%.
It would still require a revolution.
I would like to believe that we could have a gradual transition without the revolution being needed, but… present political developments make revolution seem more likely.
or just propped up with something like UBI.
That depends entirely on how much UBI is provided.
I envision a “simple” taxation system with UBI + flat tax. You adjust the flat tax high enough to get the government services you need (infrastructure like roads, education, police/military, and UBI), and you adjust the UBI up enough to keep the wealthy from running away with the show.
Marshall Brain envisioned an “open source” based property system that’s not far off from UBI: https://marshallbrain.com/manna
I dont believe AI will ever be more than essentially a parlar trick that fools you into thinking it’s intelligent when it’s really just a more advanced tool like excel compared to pen and paper or an abacus.
The real threat will be people who fool themselves into thinking it’s more than that and that it’s word is law, like a diety. Or worse, the people that do understand that but like various religious and political leaders that used religion to manipulate people, the new AI Pope’s will try and do the same manipulation but with AI.
“I dont believe AI will ever be more than essentially a parlar trick that fools you into thinking it’s intelligent.”
So in other words, it will achieve human-level intellect.
Because it won’t. So far it’s only been used to replace people and cut costs. If it were used for what it was actually intended for then it’d be a different story.
Replacing people is a good thing. It means less people do more work. It means progress. It means products and services will get cheaper and more available. The fact that people are being replaced means that AI actually has tremendous value for our society.
Great for people getting fired or finding that now the jobs they used to have that were middle class are now lower class pay or obsolete. They will be so delighted at the progress despite their salaries and employment benefits and opportunities falling.
And it’s so nice that AI is most concentrated in the hands of billionaires who are oh so generous with improving living standards of the commoners. Wonderful.
This is collateral damage of societal progress. This is a phenomenon as old as humanity. You can’t fight it. And it has brought us to where we are now. From cavemen to space explorers.
Whoever the mod was that decided to delete my comment is a fool. This guy above is a Nazi apologist.
What makes you think that? You can’t just go around and insult people personally without elaborating on the reason.
Which are separate things from people’s ability to financially support themselves.
People can have smartphones and tech the past didn’t have, but be increasingly worse off financially and unable to afford housing.
And you aren’t a space explorer.
I’m not arguing about whether innovation is cool. It is.
I however strongly disagree with your claim that people being replaced is good. That assumes society is being guided with altruism as a cornerstone of motivation to create some Star Trek future to free up people to pursue their interests, but that’s a fantasy. Innovation is simply innovation. It’s not about whether people’s lives will be improved. It doesn’t care.
World can be the most technologically advanced its ever been with space travel for the masses and still be a totalitarian dystopia. People could be poorer than ever and become corpo slaves, but it would fit under the defition of societal progress because of innovation.
People can have smartphones and tech the past didn’t have, but be increasingly worse off financially and unable to afford housing.
You really have no idea what life was like just two or three generations ago. At least you now have toilet paper, water, can shower, and don’t need to starve to death when the pig in your backyard dies of some illness. Life was FUCKING HARD man. Affording a house is your problem? Really?
And you aren’t a space explorer.
The smoke detector, the microwave and birth control pills were invented around the time when we landed on the moon.
People being economically displaced from innovation increasing productivity is good provided it happens at a reasonable place and there is a sufficient social saftey net to get those people back on their feet. Unfortunately those saftey nets dont exist everywhere and have been under attack (in the west) for the past 40 years.
Oh hey, it’s the Nazi apologist. Big shock you don’t give a fuck about other people’s lives.
Idk how these morons keep ending up here. Reddit literally caters to them now lol
You sound really stupid when calling me a Nazi under this comment.
Almost every comment of yours is insulting in some way or the other. I’m starting to think you’re some kind of (Russian) troll and don’t care about contributing anything worthwhile to these threads.
Great for people getting fired or finding that now the jobs they used to have that were middle class are now lower class pay or obsolete. They will be so delighted at the progress despite their salaries and employment benefits and opportunities falling.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Everyone who’s suprised by that is either not educated how economy works or how societal progress works. There are always winners and losers but society makes net-positive progress as a whole.
I have no empathy for people losing their jobs. Even if I lose my job, I accept it. It’s just life. Humanity is a really big machine of many gears. Some gears replace others to make the machine run more efficient.
And it’s so nice that AI is most concentrated in the hands of billionaires who are oh so generous with improving living standards of the commoners. Wonderful.
This is just a sad excuse I’m hearing all the time. The moment society gets intense and chang is about to happen, a purpetrator needs to be found. But most people don’t realize that the people at the top change all the time when the economy changes. They die aswell. It’s a dynamic system. And there is no one purpetrator in a dynamic system. The only purpetrator is progress. And progress is like entropy. It always find its way and you cannot stop it. Those who attempt to stop it instead of adapting to it will be crushed.
I have no empathy
for people losing their jobsFTFY
Replacing people is a good thing.
Yes, and no: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/g-s1-47352/why-economists-got-free-trade-with-china-so-wrong
I trust you’ve volunteered for it to replace you then. It being so beneficial to society, and all.
It means less people do more work.
And then those people no longer working… do what, exactly? Fewer well-paying jobs, same number of people, increasing costs. Math not working out here.
The fact that people are being replaced means that AI actually has tremendous value for our society.
Oh, it has value. Just not for society (it could that’s the sad part). For very specific people though, yeah, value. Just got to step on all the little people along the way, like we’ve always done, eh?
Yeah, rather than volunteering its more likely you lack a basic characteristic of humanity some of like to refer to as “empathy” instead. And if – giving you the benefit of the doubt – you’re just a troll… well, my statement stands.
I trust you’ve volunteered for it to replace you then. It being so beneficial to society, and all.
Yes. If I get replaced by something more efficient I accept that. I am no longer worth the position of my job. I will look for something else and try to find ways to apply some of my skillsets in other ways. I may do some further training and education, or just accept a lower paying job if that’s not possible.
And then those people no longer working… do what, exactly? Fewer well-paying jobs, same number of people, increasing costs. Math not working out here.
Can you elaborate? I don’t quiet understand what you mean by that. The people who no longer work need to find something else. There will remain only a fraction that can never find another job again. And that fraction is offset by the increased productivity of society.
Oh, it has value. Just not for society (it could that’s the sad part). For very specific people though, yeah, value. Just got to step on all the little people along the way, like we’ve always done, eh?
Can you specify “specific”? What little people? If you use very vague terminology like that you should back it up with some arguments. I personally see no reason why AI would disadvantage working people any more than the sewing machine did back in the day. Besides, when you think about it you’ll find that defining the terms you used is actually quiet difficult in a rapidly changing economy when you don’t know to whom these terms might apply to in the end.
I have a feeling you’re not actually thinking this through, or at least doing it on a very emotional level. This will not help you adapt to the changing world. The very opposite actually.
They’re right. What happens to the workers when they’re no longer required? The horses faced a similar issue at the advent of the combustion engine. The solution? Considerably fewer horses.
the same could be applied to humans… but then who would buy consumer goods?
In all seriousness though the only solution is for the cost of living to go down and for a UBI to exist so that the average person can choose to not work and strikes are a legitimate threat to business because they can more feasibly last for months.
What’s the point of producing goods for “useless eaters”?
money
But as for the people who worked with horses, I’m pretty sure they found different jobs - it’s not like they were sent to a glue factory.
Of course, they learned to code.
This is like asking tobacco farmers what their thoughts are on smoking.
Al Gore’s family thought that the political tide was turning against it, so they gave up tobacco farming in the late 1980s - and focused on politics.
More like asking the slaves about productivity advances in slavery. “Nothing good will come of this”.
See also; the cotton gin.
The cotton gin has been used as an argument for why slavery finally became unacceptable. Until then society “needed” slaves to do the work, but with the cotton gin and other automations the costs of slavery started becoming higher than the value.
My understanding is that the cotton gin led to more slavery as cotton production became more profitable. The machine could process cotton but not pick it, so more hands were needed for field work.
Wiki:
The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the region became even more dependent on plantations that used black slave labor, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of its economy.[35] While it took a single laborer about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day.[36] The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850."
That is also true, the cotton gin wasn’t the total economic turning point, and the Civil War pre-dated automation’s economic turning of the corner against some economic measures of slavery’s cost, but slavery has very difficult to quantify costs, it was an entrenched lifestyle much more than a pool of day labor hanging out at Home Depot waiting for work, where both employers and employees could easily change their ways on very short notice.
After the Civil War it looks like “free person” cotton harvesting labor persisted until about 1926 - that could have changed earlier, but farm owners needed a kick in the butt to figure out how to improve:
https://www.printmag.com/creative-voices/lessons-from-cottons-slow-motion-robot-takeover/
Most people in the early 90’s didn’t have or think they needed a computer.
80’s. 80’s we had apple iis, commodores, tandys, ibm pcs, etc. 90’s it was cell phones
I’m not saying people didn’t have them at all. Majority of families absolutely did not until the very late 90s. Many more people use AI now than had computers back then.
How did those barbarians sit on the toilet without memes to scroll?
That was the job of reader’s digest.
I thought Reader’s Digest was for when the roll ran out.
It should. We should have radically different lives today because of technology. But greed keeps us in the shit.
The amount of failed efforts the ruling class has made to corner ai shows me that it is a democratizing force.
I reap benefits from it already.
I can create local models with zero involvement from billionaires.
It scares them more than us.
And it should. It shows how evil they are. It’s objectively true. Ai knows it.
There is a BIG difference between what you can do and what you should do.
We have ZERO understanding on the long term effects this new technology will have on our civilization.
Why is everybody so eager to go “all in”?
We have zero understanding of the long term effect of any new tech on our civilization
But we know those who adopt early and gain mastery quickly are set up better for success in the future.
Every time.
Sort of like what the tobacco industry did? Hide the truth under corporate profits?
Ai gave me cancer lol. You’re conflating being a product of a new system vs being a pioneer in using a new system.
Are there any long term effects from that?
Mesothelioma
Not understanding sparrows role in the game caused by the Four Pests campaign. MILLIONS DEAD.
The ecological repercussions translated into a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions. The absence of sparrows, which traditionally kept locust populations in check, allowed swarms to ravage fields of grain and rice. The resulting agricultural failures, compounded by misguided policies of the Great Leap Forward, triggered a severe famine from 1958 to 1962. The death toll from starvation during this period reached 20 to 30 million people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign#Consequences
Yeah let’s abandon all tech and return to god or something.
eager to go “all in”
Is what I said, “let’s abandon” is what you said.
You should check out twitter. It’s like the place for insecure people to impotently rage that someone said some words that weren’t good enough.
Best wishes I guess. You seem to need them.
You seem to need to tell people what they didn’t say and tell them where you want them to go.
So… Could be a Republican, or a troll farm, or an A.I. extension for Chrome, or a bot, or my Ex (we still don’t get along).
Say another stupid thing so I can figure it out.
We also didnt understand how the internet would change the world, still went ahead with it. We didnt understand how computers would change the world, still went ahead with it, we didnt understand how the steam engine would change the world… etc etc.
No one can know how a new invention will change things, but you are not going to be able to crush human’s innate creativity and drive to try new things. Sometimes those things are going to be a net negative and that’s bad, but the alternative is to insist nothing new is tried and thats A bad and B not possible.
But you’re using these billionaires’ ai models are you not? Even if you use the free models they still benefit from your profile and query data
Nope :)
Deepseek GitHub fork ftw
Tax billionaires til they don’t exist ! Or some other way!
Yep you can run models without giving $$ to tech billionaires!
Now we are giving it to the power billionaires! unless you own your own power sources.
Luckily deep seek uses less power than any locally run models. Can run it on almost any modernish machine
Meh I like some of the others on hugging face a bit more for coding and such. But its all the same at the end of the day. I do like what you are saying though!
Models + moderate power should be what we strive for. I’m hoping for a star trek ending where we live in a post scarcity world. Im planing on a post apocalypse haha.
Once ASIC chips come out (essentially a specific model on a chip) the amount of power we use will be dramatically less.
ASIC ai seems like a trouble some thing. Imagine ai powered hacker dongles. Wow.
Its an interesting field! I think the reason we have not gone there is the LLM specific models all have very different models/languages/etc… right now. So the algorithms that create them and use them need flexibility. GPUs are very flexible with what they can do with tier multiprocessing.
But in 5 years (or less) time, I can see a black box kinda system that can run 1000x+ speed that will make GPU LLMs obsolete. All the new GPU farm places that are popping up will have a rude awakening lol.
Will have a look, thx.
Uhm, I guess you missed the news when it was revealed that Deepseek had a little more backing than they claimed.
Yeah they were sponsored
But the code is open sourced.
So
FOSS FTW
Interesting take. I hope you are right.
Me too
I agree. Albeit there are some advantages, of course, I am 100% certain that in the aggregate, it will make people more stupid and gullible.
It is sort of obvious when you engage with the thought, and seek it to its natural conclusion:
