You must log in or register to comment.
What should specifically scare him is the pervasive low quality of management that insists on jamming AI into processes it’s not ready for or even appropriate for.
Precisely what I’m talking about.
Pretty much. AI won’t kill all of of us because it’s smart, but because it concentrates too much power into systems that are not aligned with humanity’s best interest, and we dont have the means to resist it. Matthew Butterick argues it particularly well. Of course though, his argument is a challenge to the authority of these companies to develop these AIs, not a calling for the enlightened tech bros to guide humanity on the fragile path utopia. The folks developing AI could probably learn a thing or two from history.
I’m scared of AI because people unable to read and comprehend are asking it philosophical questions using words like pretend, feelings and who/what is good enough then thinking it’s answer is correct.
They (the AI companies) want you to be scared of AI because if you realize it’s just fancy auto-complete, you’ll realize it’s not worth several trillion dollars and the bubble might pop.
I want you to be scared of AI because it’s just fancy auto-complete; people are letting fancy auto-complete write scripts and are then just running those scripts without vetting them, and that’s going to lead to disaster.
We are not the same.
you’ll realize it’s not worth several trillion dollars and the bubble might pop.
No lay employee sending bad vibes at FartGPT will scuff the paint on the latest data center.
Now, if Larry Fink gets bearish on AI, that’s a problem. God fucking help the industry if Larry Ellison stops plowing Oracle debt into Altman’s voracious appetite for compute.
But nobody on Lemmy has any impact on the price of the auction price of a stick of RAM, much less the multi-trillion dollar AI market cap.
You worded my own meme better than me
Memes don’t work so well when there’s a paragraph of text. My version might be a good meme if I could somehow boil that down to a few words, but thanks for the vote of confidence.
It’s smart enough to fly a drone and return it to base for a recharge.
It’s smart enough to detect/track a human.
I’m far less worried that it might decide to kill us and WAY more worried that someone who owns the AI/Drones will use it to kill us.
It’s smart enough to fly a drone and return it to base for a recharge.
These tools are consistently just proxies for cheap overseas manual labor. AI is consistently augmented by mirrored human actions and often just a fascade - a juiced up mechanical turk.
WAY more worried that someone who owns the AI/Drones will use it to kill us.
If Lavendar AI is any indication of how these tools will be used, they are far more often employed as propaganda - whitewashing war crimes by generating fake accusations of imminent danger and intelligence data.
You’ll still be killed by a human. Maybe a manual operator. Maybe a human guided missile. Maybe just some asshole with a gun.
The AI will then fabricate the reason for your murder and feed it to the bureaucracy that helps pacify anyone who might object to your death.
that someone who owns the AI/Drones will use it to kill us.
Or that they’ll just be lazy and sloppy.
In movies you used to sometimes see someone put a brick on a car’s gas pedal so they could send it through a wall, or into a lake, or whatever. In a comedy, you sometimes used to see someone rig up something so that their car could drive while they slept.
Running AI “agents” is basically like opening up some application that has a lot of keyboard shortcuts to run various scripts and then putting a brick on the keyboard.
Unfortunately, we’re now at a stage where some people think that’s a good idea. The machines aren’t capable of thought, they have no desires or goals. But, if some of those scripts instruct a drone to go out and kill someone, the brick on the keyboard can get someone killed.
No, we are the same.
No we’re not. One of us is concerned only with things AI might hypothetically do in the future and what we need to do to prepare for that, which consists almost exclusively of taking actions that directly benefit AI companies, and the other one is concerned with the very real harms that AI is causing right here and now and how much bigger they’re going to get if we don’t stop (to borrow a phrase from Cory Doctorow) shoveling asbestos into the walls of our digital society
I actually meant that I agree with you, although I can definitely see how it looks like the opposite.
It won’t kill us because it sees us as a threat, it’ll kill us because it sees us as a crop of cabbages that it was asked to harvest
It’ll kill us all because some jackass deployed LLM generation code into production without reading it first and the combine harvester’s brake stopped working because a dialog box was open on the dashboard
I hate how exactly right you are.
Someone at least please promise to put how the AI kills me on my grave, as a warning to future sentient life not to be as stupid as we were.
deleted by creator
I’m a “tech bro” (lady) and I can not with AI anymore. It’s dumb guys! If you ask it for something it can google, fine, but if it’s a little more complex it will mess it up. Even doing a simple app interface (I was kind of forced to uss AI to do it) it was a PAIN. It took me a lot longer because I had to keep correcting it
The gap between googling and making an interface that you like is a bit wider than “a little”. And really it can do good stuff. I was able to develop a world class filling degree simulation based on existing ideas and how to improve them. No way could I have programmed that in any reasonable timeframe. That does not mean it is good in every way, please no straw.
I use ChaptGPT now and then and it works great except for one task: “find me this pic or video”. One would think after training on all the things it would excel at this first and foremost. Nope. Trying to find an old cracked.com article took 25 minutes, but it finally found it in a university archive. It kept giving me links to wrong articles or 404s. Looking for an old, popular meme and it had a fit. I finally prompted, “show me whatever you think it might be”, you stupid fuck. Couldn’t do it, finally found it on Google image search.
I honestly can’t figure out vibe coding. How are people making even the simplest app?! I fed a very short PowerShell script of mine into Claude to see if there was a way to speed it up. Nope. It hosed it all the fuck up. ChatGPT has never spit working code for me, only good for getting a new idea or reminder of a different tack to try.
That’s because the text part and the image part are two separate systems. ChatGPT can’t actually ‘see’ the pictures. It passes it off to a different system, like Stable Diffusion.
Imagine you are talking to a blind guy in a box, but you don’t know he’s blind, and you ask him to find you a picture of whatnots. He says ‘sure, I can do that, of course’ and then looks up in his braile dictionary what whatnots are. After this he knocks on the box next to him where his friend is, who can see, and describes whatnots.
His friend passes him the picture and he passes it to you. It’s actually a picture of whatchamacallits.
“This isn’t a whatnot. This picture has a dongle, it’s supposed to have a dangle.”
“Oh, of course, you’re so right to call this picture out, let me try again.”
And so on. That’s why it constantly prompts you to describe more so it can pass fine tuned descriptors to the imager, but it has no idea what the picture is you want or if what he gives you is correct.
The tech bros are pushing the “AI dangerous” narrative because it not only hypes the tech, but allows them to position themselves as the “safe option” compared to competing open models that they’d like to see kneecapped with regulation.
In reality, tech bros and corrupt governments are the reason why AI is dangerous because they’re using it to build a digital cage to spy on the populace and control the flow of information.
This is the classic Problem-Reaction-Solution technique.
I dont like the division this meme spreads tbh. We are the same actually. We’re on the same side of the issue, why divide ourselves?
No, we’re not. I need you to understand that. One of us is concerned only with things AI might hypothetically do in the future and what we need to do to prepare for that, which consists almost exclusively of taking actions that directly benefit AI companies, and the other one is concerned with the very real harms that AI is causing right here and now to real people (people who want to buy computer components; artists, creatives, and other knowledge workers who are watching their entire career paths get erased because while AI output is much shoddier than their work, it’s a lot cheaper, and their bosses don’t care about quality; people who live near the datacenters and have to put up with low water pressure, power outages, infrasound, and heat islands; people who need to look things up online and need to worry about whether the first result on noai.duckduckgo.com is a 100% AI generated website that contains no useful information; people who live on the same planet as the hundreds of coal and natural gas power plants being built to power all of those GPUs as governments around the world decide that being AI-forward is more important than their climate goals) and how much bigger all of those problems are going to get if we don’t stop (to borrow a phrase from Cory Doctorow) shoveling asbestos into the walls of our digital society.
Talking about how AI is too powerful to be left unchained is doing the companies’ marketing work for them. Did you actually read the whitepaper they published about Mythos? Did you actually read the details of what happened to HuggingFace? Do you realize how many protections that had been in place for decades had to be disabled before the mindless slop machines could accomplish anything at all?
You don’t like this meme because it sows division, I don’t like this meme because the font size is too small, we are not the same.
You don’t like this meme because the font size is too small. I don’t like it because the font size is too small AND there’s no (visible) outline. We are not the same.
lol good one
wait sry misspoke, what i meant was:
reeeeeEEEEEEEEEEREREEEREEEE
I don’t think it’s too smart, I think it’s a waste of resources for what it is: a scam.
The new Bitcoin…
Some tech CEO chick had her AI come up with 3 things her daughter was good at because she didn’t know any. That’s not an AI problem. That’s an AI and a parenting problems. Curiously, both could be solved with with high voltage electricity.
because she didn’t know any
That’s not what happened. She could think of many things but was having trouble with the vastness and complexity because the assignment was “(only) 3 bullet points”.
It’s still a lame reason to use the resource-hungry plagiarism machines.
That’s just a parenting problem.
It’s called doomtrolling. Pass it on!
Cory Doctorow calls it “criti-hype” (a term he defines as repeating a company’s marketing material and adding “and that’s bad” at the end), but I gotta say I like this better
