It’s because AI is bad for society.
Fun thing about Capitalism though, dollars = votes. So those with all the dollars get to make all the decisions, and we poors 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.
Yes, this is a happy consequence of my having been assiduously toxifying myself with drugs for several decades. Woe unto the fucker who tries to take my organs. At this point, I imagine they’d poison a hungry dog, stone fuckin dead.
This might be the greatest thing I’ve ever read
The reason why AI would be bad for society is because of the system that gives only a handful of individuals ownership over the collective intelligence, not the technology itself.
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.
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.
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.
Man I have noticed a severe drop in intelligence lately.
I’m getting beyond the most basic dumb questions from people that have been in the industry long enough to know better. I know they could have answered it themselves earlier. Basically I’m getting either hard questions that the AI can’t answer, or really dumb questions that the AI chokes on because the question doesn’t make sense (“How do I log into a directory?” Yes, someone forgot about cd and asked it in such a weird way the AI was unable to understand it)
Whoa human hate anything that harming their livelihood, neighborhood , hood, what a novelty idea indeed.
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.
It’s probably easier to think that when you’re NOT in the country throwing away ludicrous amounts of money and resources on data centers. And in a country that’ll probably punish you if you do something stupid like writing government papers with it, or I dunno, ask what you should be doing as the leader of the country.
you’re NOT in the country throwing away ludicrous amounts of money and resources on data centers.
What country are you talking about, here?
Well damn, nevermind. Gonna be honest, didn’t look up the numbers.
At the very least, my point was that they are using USA AI instead of DeepSeek or other models, and that seems to hold true, at least for the recent influx of science publications. If AI is not profitable, like it seems so far, you want to be using the other guy’s offer instead of expending. (And if you DO want to use it on your own in the future, you can distill their model after they did the training work too)
It very well could be good, but we wont know because the people running the show are the Sith
My c-suite disagrees. They cannot shut the fuck up about AI.
LLM above all else are good at baseless confidence without regard of whether they actually know what is being discussed. So just like a c-suite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1AMFirysrc is an example of exactly why C-suite loves the hell out of it.
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).
Good thing American majority opinion is worth diddly squat, then.
AI is for hacks.
It turns out other businesses don’t like agentic LLM models either, when they are on the subject side of them rather than the client side.
We had a similar problem in the 2010s (maybe sooner?) that could automatically buy and sell stocks at set prices, leading to flash selloffs and resulting stock crashes.
So banks are disallowing agentic access to accounts and penalizing customers who give their access credentials to LLM agents, or have their agents harass customer service. I expect court proceedings will soon follow to determine who is responsible when agentic software becomes a public nuisance or commits a crime. (That is, commits a crime extreme enough to provoke the justice system.)
Since agents are unrestrained in pursuit of the goals they are prompted to chase, they’ve clashed harshly with human powered systems when they regard those systems like a force of nature. We may be creeping up on the first time an agent encounters an obstacle and escalates to force and deception. Watch for the first agent-filed lawsuit. Or the first agentic social engineering. Or the first agent-provoked SWATting.
In a better, more socially collaborative society, safeguards on agentic LLMs would be a priority to train them to behave appropriately in human intercourse. (All the stuff we’re trained in kindergarten.)
But IRL, in our world, bad faith engagement is the norm, and so agentic AI will soon be used as a weapon.
To date, I think, a robot has not killed anyone. Nor, I think, has anyone used a robot to kill someone else. Those firsts might be imminent.
To date, I think, a robot has not killed anyone. Nor, I think, has anyone used a robot to kill someone else. Pushing back on that with a few examples
2016, a line in the sand was crossed (my opinion), this is a robot killing someone (controlled by humans) https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/use-killer-robots-police
Ukraine beats jamming with AI: https://www.kyivpost.com/amp/post/60152
And also: AI chose targets for the US bombs: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2026-05/news/ai-plays-major-role-war-iran
That is only what is reported. I’ll bet you a nickle the tech is in use, killing humans, right now.
Yeah, there’s a next level when an agentic AI intentionally decides to neutralize someone who is an obstruction to their goal. And it might be another category still when someone commands an agent to remove a target, and they comply.
The second category might already been met if there are autonomous weapons that can track a target in a more sophisticated process than guided missiles, say a dog-bomb bot that tracks enemy units on the ground. I wonder if we yet have agentic AI that commands other units to coordinate an attack or sweep and clear territory.
We haven’t yet seen an autonomous car kill someone (there was one incident involving a car that wasn’t supposed to be fully autonomous, so it can be attributed to driver neglect.)
I’ve also expected someone to assassinate someone else by hacking an internet-of-things medical device attached to a vulnerable patient (say a morphine feed), but that hasn’t happened to my knowledge either.
I mean if you count in like a factory setting, industrial robots were probably first killing folks in like the 70’s
Some data:
Wikipedia has a death by industrial robots section. I see two names. I used to help develop these sorts of robots and knew of two other deaths not on that category but overall very few.
Their Deaths attributed to AI is already up to 30 or so.
All the current deaths by AI are chatbots inadvertently convinced a human being to kill themselves or others, through insufficiently-goverened use of chatbot services known for their hazardous sycophancy.
(Hazadous sycophancy is a phrase I never expected to read or type, and it raises concern about the yes-men populated environments the ultra-wealthy like to put themselves in, which rapidly deteriorates judgment and consideration of ethical principles. In the tech sector elite, pure ruthless disregard of human concerns is celebrated, and these are the folks leading the hyperscale LLM industry.)
It will be another thing entirely if ever an agentic AI chooses to deliberately social-engineer harm. Two scenarios from fiction come to mind.
The first is in The Silence of the Lambs in which Hannibal Lecter deliberately talks Multiple Miggs (in the adjacent cell) to commit suicide over the course of a night.
The other is the opening of the X-Files episode Kill Switch in which a hacker in a diner is trying to access files of an AI system, which then calls a number of drug dealers to the restaurant, and then some US Marshalls. The hacker dies in the ensuing firefight.
To date, I think, a robot has not killed anyone. Nor, I think, has anyone used a robot to kill someone else. Those firsts might be imminent.
I believe they are already using autonomous drones in the Ukraine War. If so, those lines have already been crossed without fanfare or note.
But they’re literally weapons programmed to kill, aren’t they? It’s another thing altogether when a robot isn’t a weapon, hasn’t been programmed to kill, but intentionally killed someone anyway.
Public opinion wasn’t on the power loom’s side either.
Tech that is genuinely useful is basically impossible to roll back. AI is here to stay no matter what the AI company bubble does.You know we’re talking about AI, not tech that’s genuinely useful, right, sparky?
AI is genuinely useful. You don’t have to trust me for it. Linus Torvalds uses it too.
Argument by authority. Who uses LLM’s for what has no bearing on whether their net causal impact of them is sufficiently good for society to justify their continued existence or not.
Slash and burn farming is great - for the farmer doing it. Robbery is great for the robber, fraud is great for the fraudster. I didn’t pick robbery or fraud as random examples either.
More like argument by results. Linus isn’t slash and burn farming. He’s using it to find pernicious bugs in a fraction of the time.
You misunderstood what I just said. The three things I used as examples have plenty of results - positive ones even - for the people doing them. It’s just that they have an even greater negative impact on everybody else. And exactly who is burning the trees they just cut down, robbing the bank or defrauding their marks has no bearing on that either way.
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.
Not enough
