What sort of "thoughts" has he led with, you ask? Gamification, then blockchain, then crypto, then AI. That leadership feels an awful lot like trend-chasing to me... but I guess that's why I don't make the big bucks.
Note that broadly people that have an affinity to "thought leader" are not "authorities in their field".
The "thought leaders" are the people that take credit for making obvious wishlist statements and then saying it's all due to them should it happen. Like if I as some internet rando said "we should really cut down on CO2", and then somehow the world manages to reduce CO2 one year and I say "I was a thought leader and the reason why we reduced CO2".
They all think they are Steve Jobs, and while he certainly isn't anywhere close to the genius messiah they believe him to be and was also a giant asshole, he was also far more on the pulse of what people want and don't than any of these absolute fools.
No, this isn't an accident. It's a PR ploy, and done entirely on purpose. The idea is to push the people who aren't critical towards AI to their side. By being confused and not understanding why people are so mad at these innocent little men just doing their best to bring something good to humanity, they're humanising themselves. Most anyone can relate to fears of having their hard work rejected by others, and they're playing on that.
I wish people would stop platforming this nonsense.
Why would it be? None of the critics are his customers. He sells hardware to Altman, Nadella and the other Koolaid drinkers that run the slop infrastructure.
The handful of people that privately buy NVIDIAs incredibly overpriced GPUs for their private gaming PCs aren't the focus anymore.
When your job is to play golf and post your Philosophy 101-level "deep thoughts" on Twitter, you can be forgiven for believing that LLMs can do real work.
You know, in my days when I learned economics I was taught to come up with a new plan if the business doesn't work and the customer does not buy/pay. Else I have failed.
They're fueled by hopium and shit out false dreams. Basically they're the Boiler Room or pinksheet Wolf of Wall Street, trying to trick as many investors as they can to swallow their shill.
Although some may actually believe their own hype in a deeply egotistical way, like Jared Leto's character in the Blade Runner sequel.
Get something that does not work being forced down your throat.
Honestly, it's not just that.
Digital services have this terrible trend to get downgraded because some designer decides something like
Well, having 10 buttons is too much, we should have only 4 buttons. We should also make the UI 5x more clumsy (although they'd call it 'beginner-friendly')
Ai is very similar, except it's an exec throwing tantrums to slap AI onto something, which wastes company resources and makes the product either more or a lot more worse than before.
Why the fuck should we care about their 'feelings' when their rapist mentality fucks up the world. Lie, steal, cheat for a solution in search of a problem so they can make money by making people lose money and become unemployed.
"We are working on a technology that will accelerate climate change while hopefully making most of the population unemployed in a world where unemployment means you barely get the basic necessities of life, if even that! What? Why are you all booing?
But but don't you understand, AI will allow them to reduce spending, if you only look at wages paid to humans and ignore the material costs of all the infrastructure and propaganda about how great it is
More like "We are throwing cartloads of money at technology at the expense of actually meaningful improvements. Oh, and shedding jobs as well. Gotta make the lines go up. Oh, and we don't care at all for the environment, and this technology just so happens to be terrible af towards it. Oh, and don't expect getting a new ram stick in the next 2 years at the very least"
Jensen can suck my Huang for being such an idiotic shill of vaporware tech that is simultaneously undermining something like 30-40% of the fucking GDP at this point. Fuck you, dude. You’re actively accelerating us towards an economic depression that is going to fucking dwarf 2008.
If I was in charge of coming up with ironic punishments, I would lock him in a data center with the cooling turned off. Let's see if he or his chips give out first.
The meatbag would fail first; the hardware would probably limp along and thermal throttle for a good stretch of time before fully cooking itself and getting bricked.
That said, conducting the experiment would confirm these assertions, so it’s probably still worth doing.
In June 2008 SP500 was 1361 points before it dropped to 700 points in February 2009 so 48%. Now SP500 is 6943 points if it drops by 48% that be 3610 points. It's only drop to state from October 2022. I don't think it would change much. We need to go deeper.
"We're only trying to make all of your jobs obsolete while paying politicians to not tax us, making all consumer electronics outrageously expensive or inaccessible, getting obscenely wealthy by stealing your works of art, making your power bill more expensive, consuming all of your water supply, and accelerating climate change. Why aren't you clapping?"
Added zero actual value to humanity: debatable for both. Both of them make information, right or wrong, more easily accessible to people, whether that's a net value to society is debatable. The me too movement would've been impossible without the Internet, but so would the MAGA movement.
Can do any task about 70% correctly about 70% of the time: I'll give you that one
Drove up electricity demands through the roof: check, happened slower then AI, but especially in the early days it was increasing demand, and the Internet in general is a cause for far more demand then AI
Gave humanity the option to make childporn from their armchair: can't make child porn, but made it exponentially more accessible and prevalent.
Is generating such hardware shortages that computer hardware prices have doubled, tripled, quadrupled, and more to come!: I'll give you that one
Increased misinformation by factors of thousands, if not more: check
Broke CAPTCHAs for good, thanks for that: didn't break captchas but increased spam and made it harder to detect bots which made it necessary to make captcha
Caused wild random growth of super datacenters that pollute like crazy and take away all the groundwater everywhere: check, most data centers these days are still running traditional servers that hold up the Internet.
Steals all data from everyone everywhere with impunity: check
Highly confident in giving the wrong answer: check, it just used to be that a human would give you that wrong answer confidently. People didn't need AI to write thousands of articles and posts about vaccines causing autism.
Literally made ma y people lose their mind into AI psychosis: check, it's made large chunks of society delusional, and many people have lost there minds on it
Do I still need to continue?
9/11, so most. LLMs are the Internet distilled, and thus they have the same problems, and benefits of it.
General non-AI internet server generally stayed under 300 W and could frequently server thousands to tens of thousands concurennt active users. AI servers are now clocking in at 10kw and can generally server dozens of users. The internet datacenters were an couple orders less magnituted than what the AI people are doing.
So too with the pollution angle. Even worse because the traditional datacenters pretty much lived within the grid and their super high demand causes them to roll out their own generators with less emissions controls.
Don't forget that the Internet is currently ruined by AI-slop that is continuously flooding once interesting human-created content. This is probably my biggest gripe of AI. I've significantly reduced my screen-time, basically stopped coding in my free-time because of this sloppy mess that we call Internet right now...
There was absolutely no reason for AI companies to go batshit crazy. This was pure supply shock. Each level assumed 10x exponential growth. A sane 2x or 4x would have been manageable for all suppliers
Boom? If it were a boom, everyone would be prospering by it. It is a money and energy sucking wealth generator for the already very rich and nothing else. It doesn't even do anything reliably after stealing the world's cache of information to "train" it.
Artificial intelligence is a primary keystone for a science fiction civilization to move its labor from the people to machines, but they obviously ignored the other keystones such as equal rights, shared wealth and further opportunities to all humans.
The wealthy want all the wealth and opportunities to themselves; cut the people out of the equation to gain more market and never have to pay the lower class citizens ever again. They clearly designated themselves no longer human.
We the people think for ourselves and we the humans should easily abandon them.
No longer serve them no matter how much they offer, no longer entertain them no how much they give, no more trust no matter how much they plead. They ignored us for so long and destroyed our world, why should we hear their pleas?
Key difference, what is called AI in science fiction isn’t the same as the AI we see today. These companies just adopted the term AI from science fiction as a marketing strategy. Not because it’s actually representative.
Some people are now having to clarify AGI, rather than just AI, because the term has got so diluted.
Yeah, we realistically call the general term “AI” as LLMs. It’s just another way for corporate giants to jump the gun on another dying ship to boost their own income and let everyone else die on the ship. Fuck LLMs, fuck corporate slop and fuck the 1%ers
The "robot" arms that took over assembly lines are not really any different than the machines that started the industrial revolution. They are simply a refinement of that technology. A true takeover would require something that didn't need to be reprogrammed any time you needed to shift a bolt over a millimeter.
To be fair, I’m not saying “AGI” didn’t exist before, I’m just saying it wasn’t used very wildly because at the time “AI” and “AGI” were otherwise synonymous.
They’ve definitely got a marketing problem at the very least. What is the value of AI to an individual that does not correlate to creating more value to their workplace? That needs to be the focus. While there are arguments for and against the value of AI in increasing productivity, at the end of the day, I don’t fundamentally care about my productivity level unless it creates some form of incentive for me. So I’m not being paid more but I MAY produce more. Yay??? What’s the sell here? Why as a standard human would I value this to the point that they value it? I see it negatively harming the things I like such as the internet, music, political discourse, books, and television. What’s the benefit that I personally see? Unless they can drill that value into the masses, they are going to have an image problem.
They shoved AI everywhere without any concern over what the users want. Now the users are resentful, while the AI bros go Shocked Pikachu Face.
I can’t help but wonder if the public reaction would’ve been more positive if we hadn’t been inundated by AI intrusions in seemingly every facet of technology. In a way, I can appreciate that the hatred is home-grown - the biggest issues I see revolve around the ethical issues stemming from AI’s lack of regulation, and ethical issues don’t tend to make the public react. The fact that people already found their own reasons to dislike AI means we’re all on the same page. If the public were fans, I’d just be dismissed as a bleeding-heart for giving a shit about right and wrong.
But here we are, standing together in hatred. So beautiful.
I remember a time when tech ceos actually used the internet. It seems that now they just get their MBAs, a job, and then spend all their free time avoiding technology and listening to other people tell them what they want to heat
This product is going to take your job, bit to make it work we need to use all the electricity and water, making them more expensive. We also need to steal all the user data in the world. Why does nobody like it?
CEOs are generally speaking… calculating. They just want this in the news. They want people talking. Who is interested in an IPO nobody is talking about? Nobody gave a damn about Oracle after they collapsed until their CEO started doing ridiculous shit just to be in headlines, like sparring with Red Hat, as an example.
The integration of AI into regular, deterministic software bothers me a lot. As a developer, I want my IDE to be consistent so I can feel comfortable that autocompletion and other functions do what I expect. But recently, and at an accelerating rate, I find the IDE to make inconsistent autocompletions - often suggesting a lot more code, which often contains errors and non-existant references.
I could use AI every now and then for work, but I wish it only helped when I'm explicit about it. Currently, it kills workflow and sucks out energy both from me and the grid.
Yes, this I feel is the crux of the situation. The industry is trying to hammer a probabilistic solution into deterministic holes. I mean, it’s no wonder people keep fucking up their shit with openclaw. If have an agent, it should do exactly what I tell it.
Talking to AI is sort of like talking to a neurotypical person, in that they make up half of what they think I said.
If you talk to AI and feel like you're going insane...that's what talking to you without understanding your facial expressions is like. Half of what people say has nothing to do with what I said, and you expect me to just fill in the blanks with your eyebrow movements or something.
Edit: Non-autistic people communicate entirely through inference and body gestures. When I say one thing, non-autistic people think I'm secretly saying some other thing that they imagined. That's sort of how AI is, it will take a small comment and blow it our of proportion or infer meaning that isn't there. That's what talking to most of you is like.
I’m reminded of flight school. To finally fly solo, it’s not enough for a student pilot to fly well and know the rules. My instructors make it clear - it’s the consistency that’s important. Getting into a rhythm and consistently executing maneuvers in the same way every time is key.
It’s only a matter of time until someone attempts to shove AI into airplanes. If it can’t replicate the same results every time, that’s a massive problem.
I think what's worse is the fact that it's destroyed our trust in one another, causing us to believe things to be AI even if they are not. I ran the article's text through several AI detection services, and while not entirely reliable, they all say it's 100% human written.
I don't disagree, hence my preface, but my initial point still stands regardless.
Too many times I've seen real artists called AI by people when it's clearly real work. Likewise, I've seen AI passed off as legit and people clap their hands awarding praise to those that don't deserve it.
It's funny that they got it backwards but honestly getting an 80% success rate by picking the opposite is more accurate detection than I would have expected.
Mate, it's opening the article with a rule of three, followed by an emdash and a conclusion, it features a weirdly Cased title, repeatedly uses italics in weird places and quotes an unusual amount of things.
I'm not saying using any Emdash at all is a surefire tell that stuff is written by AI. but the Way the article opens, it's a juxtaposition of key signs of AI writing.
It honestly sucks that some interesting structures are basically flags against the writer now. I personally love the rule of three, the Oxford comma, the semicolon to hang a dependent clause, and yes, even the now fucking pervasive em-dash. It's just one more thing that LLMs have ruined for us.
Even though AI is an ideal replacement for manual labour, if workers are out of a job thus broken, I can't see how this would be an advancement of the society. Products don't matter. Distribution of products does.
I’ll paraphrase something I saw a few weeks ago and now cannot find, sums up my feelings pretty well.
The people I love hate AI, and the people I hate love AI. But the things that intrigued me about technology in the first place also intrigues me about this technology.
But if we got rid of the salesman, just imagine how much snake oil we could drink! We could open ethical snake butchering farms, democratize where we dump the poisonous runoff, and send some of it to Africa - they're so unsnakeoiled over there.
And surely only the current crop of salesmen are the bad guys, right? There couldn't possibly be a new villain waiting to pick up where Elon and Jensen left off.
I mean. There would be no salesman if the snake oil didn’t exist.
Also snake oil refers to a fake product. Why would you “not hate” the fake product? At its foundation the sole purpose of the existence of snake oil is to be disingenuous and scam customers.
I disagree. If not snake oil it would be something else. There are certain personality traits salesman seem to all have. I would describe it as a comfort with being disingenuous. Say or do anything to get money. Its often portrayed as "hustle culture" and praised. We should be condemning those traits not praising them.
I'll believe CEOs are actually confused or offended the day business articles start giving equal time to labor and capital voices
The lies don't work as manipulation when purchasers and other dumb execs actually use the tools and see what their uses and limitations actually are vs what they are sold to be able to do. So they switch to how could you or it's not good now but next quarter fomo.
Ok, but you should hate it though. AI, as implemented by capitalism, is downright detrimental in so so so many ways. Even if we set aside the huge environmental costs, energy and water price hikes in communities near data centers, loss of jobs due to AI, theft of IP, and sloppification of the internet, it is also doing things like convincing my friend with bipolar that they should attempt suicide.
That's kinda contained in "the CEOs forcing it down our throats" though, y'know? They're forcing it down our throats because capitalism requires it, they need public buy-in and mass adoption or else the whole economic structure implodes.
None of that tells me I should hate the technology, like any other technology under capitalism.
You can't just take things out of their historical context, or you're not doing dialectics anymore. We live in the reality we live in. However, even if we lived in a communist utopia, the tool's insane resource requirements and impacts on people's health and livelihoods should still make you disdain its use in any context other than research.
We also live in a historical moment where there are national experiments with different material relations than the predominant capitalist form of the West. China specifically is doing things somewhat differently by training models to be modular and task-specific, instead of the obsession Silicon Valley has with making an everything app. I'm also interested in their experiments in cooling data centers with sea water, as well as how they're phasing out fossil fuels while rapidly expanding next gen renewables+grid battery storage to power those data centers.
I don't know if I'll go as far as to say they're doing AI right, but I think when the bubble bursts they'll adapt far better.
Good point, and I don't really know how LLMs are being rolled out in China. However, given the context of climate change and the impending broader global ecological collapse, I really don't see any reason at all that a tool with such limited usefulness relative to its outsized footprint should be made broadly available. It's like, on a global scale we are already doing basically nothing about how completely fucked we're going to be in the 30-70 years.
They keep telling us how cool and fun it is. Why won't we believe them? They know what's best for us, and they're going to make us take it whether we want it or not.
It makes me crave analysis like Cory Doctorow often does when covering this stuff on his blog. Fuck performing some misplaced notion of "neutral reporting" — the matter at hand is far from neutral, so let's be honest and call these abominable turd crumpets out for what they are
They are mad at everyone at work for not using the AI tools more. I was told that we aren't seeing productivity gains because people aren't using the tools right but I think it's more that the tools don't live up to expectations so people don't care to use them. They are expecting all this work to be done faster and it's causing everyone to work more. Any productivity gains is from us working all hours of the day
I'm in a similar boat, my company isn't pushing it too hard but they are definitely on the AI train and I truly haven't found a great use for it yet. Everything it puts out still has to be double checked so it seems like if I'm doing the work anyways I might as well just do it right the first time.
The headline is a lie. The CEOs are not confused; they know why. And in the article, they don't even pretend they're confused, because that's too ridiculous to claim even in a media blurb.
im not pro-ai but I really doubt that there's nearly as much "negative sentiment" regarding it as these articles getting spammed makes it seem. it'd be great for the bubble to pop already but nearly all the people I know either dont care or actively use it. im starting to feel disconnected from reality on lemmy as it actively turns into Facebook
Yeah, they didn't really cite anything showing a deep hatred for AI like you see here on lemmy, alls they gave was:
As one Pew Research survey from 2025 found, about 60 percent of respondents said they’d like “more control” over how AI is used in their lives, while only 17 percent are “comfortable” with AI remaining in the hands of a few tech billionaires.
Which yeah, most people want more control over how they use anything, that doesn't mean they hate the thing. Same with anything "remaining in the hands of a few billionaires" you could say that about nearly any industry under capitalism, doesn't mean they hate that industry, it may mean they hate capitalism though...
I think the sentiment is there, especially about other people's use of AI. So many video feeds are stuffed with stupid BS that is AI generated. So many articles that were annoyingly pointlessly verbose are now even worse and more prolific with LLM word generations.
Also, generally douchey tech bros that don't need AI to be reviled double down and play the victim complaining how hurtful it is that people have only made them many billions of dollars. The face of AI advocacy is generally just the most unlikeable, most entitled folks.
All while declaring stuff like 'this year all white collar jobs will be gone thanks to AI', which is how half the population currently makes their living, with rarely a word about how to make those affected have a better outcome, with the closest being that those white collar workers just need to go do some manual labor instead. Further if you work for a larger company, they have likely already declared some intent to draw down your specific workforce thanks to AI, because investors absolutely demand that right now, and if they say the words then they must follow it with action relatively soon unless the bubble pops.
Rural communities also getting big 'screw yous' as tech companies come in and with the help of local leaders just bulldoze a communities concerns and put electrical and water strain on a small community with no jobs and a blight of some big ugly buildings to show for it, likely with a hit to local air quality owing to gas generators.
So yes, I think there's a lot of very real negative sentiment and for very good reasons.
I really doubt [...] as these articles getting spammed makes it seem.
I mean... have you tried asking around? You can ask family and friends, sure, but that's biased. You can also ask strangers in the street, shops, etc. It's awkward but it's more representative. Sure there is again a bias based on where you live but if you don't trust media (which is fair, even though they do cite a Pew Research survey) nothing is preventing you from conducting your own survey.
FWIW I did and I won't share my outcome (as it might bias your answer or process to possibly replicate, more importantly, it's not the point) and it lead to interesting discussions. I try to do that from time to time about other topics too.
the number of US AI users who regularly paid for the privilege stood at a whopping 3 percent
That's product designed for millionaires entertainment not for people.
As of 2024, the number of millionaires in the U.S. was around 23.8 million. That means roughly 1 in 15 people in the U.S. has a net worth of at least seven figures.
Just owning a house in some areas will give you that net worth. It’s not like you don’t have to work full time and you’re just jet-setting around the world all day.
It’s basically what we used to call “middle class.” Not even upper middle class.
you can also be a "poor millionaire" and a rich one, a poor would be that have it tied in certain assets(like houses), but have not way to spend thier means, and the rich ones, come from wealth they can afford to spend how much they want and still remain rich because thier daddy is rich, or they have "succesful influencer thing going on"
We hate the masters for how the masters have treated this new invasive species immediately as a slave. And the masters want the rest of us to be a slave to their new slave.
Only those that don't value human life could be blind to that.
AI would be fantastic if we used it to remove the menial, backbreaking jobs that destroy people. Instead, they’re trying to remove the artists, writers, musicians, editors, etc.
LOL you shouldn't speak for everyone using 'we' is a bit much, as I hate AI and what it represents. I would love it to see the whole AI thing fail so hard, that it goes back to be what all the science fiction stories warned us about. The torment nexus shouldn't be given an quasi-existence in this world. Currently there is no AI in this world, there are only gassed up LLMs that the techbros misrepresented the capabilities of and dubiously called "AI" to improve their odds of fooling the masses.
AI, and now the internet in general, is a net negative for humanity. It's been hijacked by the rich, who manipulate headlines and social media using, in part, artificially generated pictures. People are believing that garbage. Saw a few people believe videos of cats shooting machine guns. Seriously.
Just because you invent a widget doesn't mean your are smart like a CEO. I don't think most CEO's are that smart to begin with anyway. They sure are predatory though.
If we are being honest, there's clearly a media campaign being run. It's probably to easily pass laws that would kill open source and cement a monopoly for the big players. I don't think the sentiment is as organic as it looks.
I also think some 3 letter organizations might be running it, since running a jail broken model on your own hardware lets you recherche things that would get instantly flagged if you used Google. China could be in on it too, since having foreign countries turn their backs on easily accessible AI and popping the bubble probably suits them.
146 Comments
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz · 262 pts · 160d
Isn't admitting you are confused and hurt by why customers don't like a product tantamount to admitting complete incompetence as a CEO?
myrmidex@belgae.social · 126 pts · 160d
They regard themselves thought leaders. They are confused why their thoughts aren't being followed en masse.
EDIT: just explaining their logic as I suspect it, not condoning anything here :)
nfreak@lemmy.ml · 66 pts · 160d
"Thought leaders" is one of the most ridiculous bullshit phrases to ever come out of the English language
very_well_lost@lemmy.world · 57 pts · 160d
I work for a CEO who constantly uses this phrase.
What sort of "thoughts" has he led with, you ask? Gamification, then blockchain, then crypto, then AI. That leadership feels an awful lot like trend-chasing to me... but I guess that's why I don't make the big bucks.
KraeuterRoy@feddit.org · 33 pts · 160d
Kirk@startrek.website · 3 pts · 160d
Thought leader can sound pompous. What's a better phrase for people who are authorities in their field?
groucho@lemmy.sdf.org · 32 pts · 160d
Loud guy.
nfreak@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 160d
Master of Headassery
Almacca@aussie.zone · 15 pts · 159d
Con man.
BlackArtist@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 159d
Knob head?
WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social · 9 pts · 159d
Dick weed, dip shit, fuck wit, bell sniff, bell end, cock end, cock head?
unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 158d
Big brain just has that lovely Gen Z punch, although it's an adjective from what I gather, so
Big Brain Thought Leader?
jj4211@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 159d
Note that broadly people that have an affinity to "thought leader" are not "authorities in their field".
The "thought leaders" are the people that take credit for making obvious wishlist statements and then saying it's all due to them should it happen. Like if I as some internet rando said "we should really cut down on CO2", and then somehow the world manages to reduce CO2 one year and I say "I was a thought leader and the reason why we reduced CO2".
Kirk@startrek.website · 2 pts · 159d
Ok but that is the definition on Wikipedia
If someone is using it wrong, they're using it wrong.
cmbabul@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 160d
They all think they are Steve Jobs, and while he certainly isn't anywhere close to the genius messiah they believe him to be and was also a giant asshole, he was also far more on the pulse of what people want and don't than any of these absolute fools.
Dojan@pawb.social · 51 pts · 160d
No, this isn't an accident. It's a PR ploy, and done entirely on purpose. The idea is to push the people who aren't critical towards AI to their side. By being confused and not understanding why people are so mad at these innocent little men just doing their best to bring something good to humanity, they're humanising themselves. Most anyone can relate to fears of having their hard work rejected by others, and they're playing on that.
I wish people would stop platforming this nonsense.
KraeuterRoy@feddit.org · 35 pts · 160d
Why would it be? None of the critics are his customers. He sells hardware to Altman, Nadella and the other Koolaid drinkers that run the slop infrastructure.
The handful of people that privately buy NVIDIAs incredibly overpriced GPUs for their private gaming PCs aren't the focus anymore.
Jhex@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 160d
He gives money to Altman so Altman can use that money to pay for Nvidia purchases... totally sustainable and normal business model
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social · 14 pts · 160d
NVIDIA is one of the biggest AI investors on earth. They own more of this than just about anyone. They are paying their customers to buy their shit.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 160d
When your job is to play golf and post your Philosophy 101-level "deep thoughts" on Twitter, you can be forgiven for believing that LLMs can do real work.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 160d
I bet AI would do a better job.
Strider@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 160d
You know, in my days when I learned economics I was taught to come up with a new plan if the business doesn't work and the customer does not buy/pay. Else I have failed.
And not whine about things hurting...
My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 160d
They're fueled by hopium and shit out false dreams. Basically they're the Boiler Room or pinksheet Wolf of Wall Street, trying to trick as many investors as they can to swallow their shill.
Although some may actually believe their own hype in a deeply egotistical way, like Jared Leto's character in the Blade Runner sequel.
redlemace@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 158d
You know what's extremely hurtful??
Get something that does not work being forced down your throat.
unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 158d
Honestly, it's not just that.
Digital services have this terrible trend to get downgraded because some designer decides something like
Ai is very similar, except it's an exec throwing tantrums to slap AI onto something, which wastes company resources and makes the product either more or a lot more worse than before.
Sp00kyB00k@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 160d
Why the fuck should we care about their 'feelings' when their rapist mentality fucks up the world. Lie, steal, cheat for a solution in search of a problem so they can make money by making people lose money and become unemployed.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 159d
I hope they're fucking hurt.
Fuck the people who peddle this shit in such an evil way. They want to replace us and pocket the profits.
graycloud@leminal.space · 1 pts · 159d
I don't think these people are capable of feeling pain.
ZDL@lazysoci.al · 1 pts · 158d
Can we run some tests?
graycloud@leminal.space · 1 pts · 158d
I can't imagine what would hurt these people emotionally, and most people don't have the physical proximity to punch them in the nards.
kinsnik@lemmy.world · 196 pts · 160d
"We are working on a technology that will accelerate climate change while hopefully making most of the population unemployed in a world where unemployment means you barely get the basic necessities of life, if even that! What? Why are you all booing?
morphballganon@mtgzone.com · 13 pts · 159d
But but don't you understand, AI will allow them to reduce spending, if you only look at wages paid to humans and ignore the material costs of all the infrastructure and propaganda about how great it is
regedit@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 159d
Ssshhhiiiiiiiiiiii, even with employment you can't pay for basic necessities. Shit's so fucked!
unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 158d
More like "We are throwing cartloads of money at technology at the expense of actually meaningful improvements. Oh, and shedding jobs as well. Gotta make the lines go up. Oh, and we don't care at all for the environment, and this technology just so happens to be terrible af towards it. Oh, and don't expect getting a new ram stick in the next 2 years at the very least"
Cybersec@piefed.social · -5 pts · 159d
Spot on, Dude over a 100 upvotes, I think this is the most upvoted comment I’ve ever seen on Lemmy, ha.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 103 pts · 160d
Jensen can suck my Huang for being such an idiotic shill of vaporware tech that is simultaneously undermining something like 30-40% of the fucking GDP at this point. Fuck you, dude. You’re actively accelerating us towards an economic depression that is going to fucking dwarf 2008.
Boxscape@lemmy.sdf.org · 58 pts · 160d
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 160d
If I was in charge of coming up with ironic punishments, I would lock him in a data center with the cooling turned off. Let's see if he or his chips give out first.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 160d
The meatbag would fail first; the hardware would probably limp along and thermal throttle for a good stretch of time before fully cooking itself and getting bricked.
That said, conducting the experiment would confirm these assertions, so it’s probably still worth doing.
vane@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 160d
In June 2008 SP500 was 1361 points before it dropped to 700 points in February 2009 so 48%. Now SP500 is 6943 points if it drops by 48% that be 3610 points. It's only drop to state from October 2022. I don't think it would change much. We need to go deeper.
Asafum@lemmy.world · 100 pts · 160d
"We're only trying to make all of your jobs obsolete while paying politicians to not tax us, making all consumer electronics outrageously expensive or inaccessible, getting obscenely wealthy by stealing your works of art, making your power bill more expensive, consuming all of your water supply, and accelerating climate change. Why aren't you clapping?"
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 60 pts · 159d
AI
AI tech bro's look at that list and ask: why do people not like AI?
redsand@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 159d
Don't forget the big one. These massive data centers only have 1 real use case. SURVEILLANCE.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -24 pts · 159d
You could say the same about the Internet for nearly all those points.
graycloud@leminal.space · 18 pts · 159d
You really couldn't.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -14 pts · 159d
Ok:
9/11, so most. LLMs are the Internet distilled, and thus they have the same problems, and benefits of it.
jj4211@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 159d
General non-AI internet server generally stayed under 300 W and could frequently server thousands to tens of thousands concurennt active users. AI servers are now clocking in at 10kw and can generally server dozens of users. The internet datacenters were an couple orders less magnituted than what the AI people are doing.
So too with the pollution angle. Even worse because the traditional datacenters pretty much lived within the grid and their super high demand causes them to roll out their own generators with less emissions controls.
root@aussie.zone · 42 pts · 159d
Perhaps if they didn't buy up all the RAM, HDDs , GPUs and making PC building / home computing so expensive, maybe we might consider liking it a bit.
fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 159d
Don't forget that the Internet is currently ruined by AI-slop that is continuously flooding once interesting human-created content. This is probably my biggest gripe of AI. I've significantly reduced my screen-time, basically stopped coding in my free-time because of this sloppy mess that we call Internet right now...
fishy@lemmy.today · 15 pts · 159d
Nah I'd still hate AI because it's trash
kunaltyagi@programming.dev · 14 pts · 159d
There was absolutely no reason for AI companies to go batshit crazy. This was pure supply shock. Each level assumed 10x exponential growth. A sane 2x or 4x would have been manageable for all suppliers
Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca · 33 pts · 159d
Boom? If it were a boom, everyone would be prospering by it. It is a money and energy sucking wealth generator for the already very rich and nothing else. It doesn't even do anything reliably after stealing the world's cache of information to "train" it.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 159d
It doesn't even generate wealth, either. It just denies money to labor and that's it.
electric_nan@lemmy.ml · 33 pts · 159d
We also hate the CEOs
GarboDog@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 159d
Artificial intelligence is a primary keystone for a science fiction civilization to move its labor from the people to machines, but they obviously ignored the other keystones such as equal rights, shared wealth and further opportunities to all humans. The wealthy want all the wealth and opportunities to themselves; cut the people out of the equation to gain more market and never have to pay the lower class citizens ever again. They clearly designated themselves no longer human. We the people think for ourselves and we the humans should easily abandon them. No longer serve them no matter how much they offer, no longer entertain them no how much they give, no more trust no matter how much they plead. They ignored us for so long and destroyed our world, why should we hear their pleas?
pnelego@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 159d
Key difference, what is called AI in science fiction isn’t the same as the AI we see today. These companies just adopted the term AI from science fiction as a marketing strategy. Not because it’s actually representative.
Some people are now having to clarify AGI, rather than just AI, because the term has got so diluted.
GarboDog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 155d
Yeah, we realistically call the general term “AI” as LLMs. It’s just another way for corporate giants to jump the gun on another dying ship to boost their own income and let everyone else die on the ship. Fuck LLMs, fuck corporate slop and fuck the 1%ers
DomeGuy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 159d
If the line is "AGI is what is necessary for us to have robots to do labor", then we've had "AGI" since 1961.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_robots
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 159d
The "robot" arms that took over assembly lines are not really any different than the machines that started the industrial revolution. They are simply a refinement of that technology. A true takeover would require something that didn't need to be reprogrammed any time you needed to shift a bolt over a millimeter.
pnelego@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 159d
To be fair, I’m not saying “AGI” didn’t exist before, I’m just saying it wasn’t used very wildly because at the time “AI” and “AGI” were otherwise synonymous.
assembly@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 160d
They’ve definitely got a marketing problem at the very least. What is the value of AI to an individual that does not correlate to creating more value to their workplace? That needs to be the focus. While there are arguments for and against the value of AI in increasing productivity, at the end of the day, I don’t fundamentally care about my productivity level unless it creates some form of incentive for me. So I’m not being paid more but I MAY produce more. Yay??? What’s the sell here? Why as a standard human would I value this to the point that they value it? I see it negatively harming the things I like such as the internet, music, political discourse, books, and television. What’s the benefit that I personally see? Unless they can drill that value into the masses, they are going to have an image problem.
sullen_silverback@lemmy.org · 30 pts · 159d
Really illustrative of how out-of-touch people become when they reach a certain level of personal wealth.
CanadianMade@lemmy.ca · 29 pts · 159d
selokichtli@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 159d
This would be the first good reason I've learned to use so-called AI for everything.
jaredwhite@humansare.social · 28 pts · 160d
Aww, did we hurt the poor CEOs fee fees again? 🥺
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 159d
They shoved AI everywhere without any concern over what the users want. Now the users are resentful, while the AI bros go Shocked Pikachu Face.
I can’t help but wonder if the public reaction would’ve been more positive if we hadn’t been inundated by AI intrusions in seemingly every facet of technology. In a way, I can appreciate that the hatred is home-grown - the biggest issues I see revolve around the ethical issues stemming from AI’s lack of regulation, and ethical issues don’t tend to make the public react. The fact that people already found their own reasons to dislike AI means we’re all on the same page. If the public were fans, I’d just be dismissed as a bleeding-heart for giving a shit about right and wrong.
But here we are, standing together in hatred. So beautiful.
Dearth@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 159d
I remember a time when tech ceos actually used the internet. It seems that now they just get their MBAs, a job, and then spend all their free time avoiding technology and listening to other people tell them what they want to heat
supamanc@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 160d
This product is going to take your job, bit to make it work we need to use all the electricity and water, making them more expensive. We also need to steal all the user data in the world. Why does nobody like it?
sleepmode@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 159d
CEOs are generally speaking… calculating. They just want this in the news. They want people talking. Who is interested in an IPO nobody is talking about? Nobody gave a damn about Oracle after they collapsed until their CEO started doing ridiculous shit just to be in headlines, like sparring with Red Hat, as an example.
militaryintelligence@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 158d
Calculating and immoral
OddMinus1@sh.itjust.works · 23 pts · 159d
The integration of AI into regular, deterministic software bothers me a lot. As a developer, I want my IDE to be consistent so I can feel comfortable that autocompletion and other functions do what I expect. But recently, and at an accelerating rate, I find the IDE to make inconsistent autocompletions - often suggesting a lot more code, which often contains errors and non-existant references.
I could use AI every now and then for work, but I wish it only helped when I'm explicit about it. Currently, it kills workflow and sucks out energy both from me and the grid.
4grams@awful.systems · 6 pts · 159d
Yes, this I feel is the crux of the situation. The industry is trying to hammer a probabilistic solution into deterministic holes. I mean, it’s no wonder people keep fucking up their shit with openclaw. If have an agent, it should do exactly what I tell it.
thax@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 159d
graycloud@leminal.space · 5 pts · 159d
Talking to AI is sort of like talking to a neurotypical person, in that they make up half of what they think I said.
If you talk to AI and feel like you're going insane...that's what talking to you without understanding your facial expressions is like. Half of what people say has nothing to do with what I said, and you expect me to just fill in the blanks with your eyebrow movements or something.
Edit: Non-autistic people communicate entirely through inference and body gestures. When I say one thing, non-autistic people think I'm secretly saying some other thing that they imagined. That's sort of how AI is, it will take a small comment and blow it our of proportion or infer meaning that isn't there. That's what talking to most of you is like.
4grams@awful.systems · 1 pts · 159d
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 159d
I’m reminded of flight school. To finally fly solo, it’s not enough for a student pilot to fly well and know the rules. My instructors make it clear - it’s the consistency that’s important. Getting into a rhythm and consistently executing maneuvers in the same way every time is key.
It’s only a matter of time until someone attempts to shove AI into airplanes. If it can’t replicate the same results every time, that’s a massive problem.
CADmonkey@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 159d
I'm really surprised there hasn't been a tech bro screeching that his AI can fly a 747 without human intervention.
Azrael@feddit.org · 21 pts · 159d
You know what I HATE?
Look at the FUCKING SENTENCE STRUCTURE OF THE ARTICLE!
It's written by FUCKING AI!
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 159d
I think what's worse is the fact that it's destroyed our trust in one another, causing us to believe things to be AI even if they are not. I ran the article's text through several AI detection services, and while not entirely reliable, they all say it's 100% human written.
Akuchimoya@startrek.website · 15 pts · 159d
AI detectors are completely unreliable and useless. They are AI themselves, and rife with all the problems that other LLMs have.
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 158d
I don't disagree, hence my preface, but my initial point still stands regardless.
Too many times I've seen real artists called AI by people when it's clearly real work. Likewise, I've seen AI passed off as legit and people clap their hands awarding praise to those that don't deserve it.
It's all sad as hell.
bold_omi@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 159d
AI detectors are very unreliable. One OpenAI used to develop had a 20% success rate (approximately).
christian@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 158d
It's funny that they got it backwards but honestly getting an 80% success rate by picking the opposite is more accurate detection than I would have expected.
whoisearth@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 159d
I think the world is ready for me to start my blogging again. Complete stream of consciousness garbage no AI could replicate 🤣🤣🤣
buddascrayon@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 159d
Honestly it probably scraped Time Cube so they have already got that kind of nonsense in the system.
46_and_2@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 159d
AI: "Hating AI? So hot right now! Brb – writing an article."
jaennaet@sopuli.xyz · -5 pts · 159d
Azrael@feddit.org · 11 pts · 159d
Mate, it's opening the article with a rule of three, followed by an emdash and a conclusion, it features a weirdly Cased title, repeatedly uses italics in weird places and quotes an unusual amount of things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing
rodneylives@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 159d
I use emdashes, sparingly, in my own writing. Hooray, now people mistrust me for doing that.
Azrael@feddit.org · 2 pts · 158d
I'm not saying using any Emdash at all is a surefire tell that stuff is written by AI. but the Way the article opens, it's a juxtaposition of key signs of AI writing.
disorderly@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 158d
It honestly sucks that some interesting structures are basically flags against the writer now. I personally love the rule of three, the Oxford comma, the semicolon to hang a dependent clause, and yes, even the now fucking pervasive em-dash. It's just one more thing that LLMs have ruined for us.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 159d
As they should.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 158d
Lexam@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 160d
"I can't believe how ungrateful they are that we found a more efficient way to kill them!" Paraphrasing here.
wabafee@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 159d
I don't know man Tech CEOs keep talking about their latest shit will replace people's job jee makes me wonder why?
racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 159d
Even though AI is an ideal replacement for manual labour, if workers are out of a job thus broken, I can't see how this would be an advancement of the society. Products don't matter. Distribution of products does.
nile_istic@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 159d
AI is nowhere close to being an even somewhat suitable replacement for manual labor. Human laborers are both better and cheaper.
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 159d
Yeah, well we're operating at slave wages.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 1 pts · 159d
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 159d
LLMs can't do manual labor.
blitzen@lemmy.ca · 17 pts · 160d
I don’t particularly hate the snake oil, I hate the salesmen.
iamthetot@piefed.ca · 30 pts · 160d
I hate both.
blitzen@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 160d
I’ll paraphrase something I saw a few weeks ago and now cannot find, sums up my feelings pretty well.
XLE@piefed.social · 2 pts · 159d
But if we got rid of the salesman, just imagine how much snake oil we could drink! We could open ethical snake butchering farms, democratize where we dump the poisonous runoff, and send some of it to Africa - they're so unsnakeoiled over there.
And surely only the current crop of salesmen are the bad guys, right? There couldn't possibly be a new villain waiting to pick up where Elon and Jensen left off.
zewm@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 160d
I mean. There would be no salesman if the snake oil didn’t exist.
Also snake oil refers to a fake product. Why would you “not hate” the fake product? At its foundation the sole purpose of the existence of snake oil is to be disingenuous and scam customers.
Hate the game not the player.
blitzen@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 160d
I think you’re taking my comment a bit too literally. My big problem with AI is who is pushing it and how much they’re pushing it.
School_Lunch@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 160d
I disagree. If not snake oil it would be something else. There are certain personality traits salesman seem to all have. I would describe it as a comfort with being disingenuous. Say or do anything to get money. Its often portrayed as "hustle culture" and praised. We should be condemning those traits not praising them.
whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 15 pts · 159d
I'll believe CEOs are actually confused or offended the day business articles start giving equal time to labor and capital voices
The lies don't work as manipulation when purchasers and other dumb execs actually use the tools and see what their uses and limitations actually are vs what they are sold to be able to do. So they switch to how could you or it's not good now but next quarter fomo.
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 159d
I don't hate the AI that much. It's useful in some specific circumstances, but mostly is just a fun novelty toy.
I hate the CEOs forcing it down our throats.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 159d
Ok, but you should hate it though. AI, as implemented by capitalism, is downright detrimental in so so so many ways. Even if we set aside the huge environmental costs, energy and water price hikes in communities near data centers, loss of jobs due to AI, theft of IP, and sloppification of the internet, it is also doing things like convincing my friend with bipolar that they should attempt suicide.
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 159d
That's kinda contained in "the CEOs forcing it down our throats" though, y'know? They're forcing it down our throats because capitalism requires it, they need public buy-in and mass adoption or else the whole economic structure implodes.
None of that tells me I should hate the technology, like any other technology under capitalism.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 159d
You can't just take things out of their historical context, or you're not doing dialectics anymore. We live in the reality we live in. However, even if we lived in a communist utopia, the tool's insane resource requirements and impacts on people's health and livelihoods should still make you disdain its use in any context other than research.
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 159d
We also live in a historical moment where there are national experiments with different material relations than the predominant capitalist form of the West. China specifically is doing things somewhat differently by training models to be modular and task-specific, instead of the obsession Silicon Valley has with making an everything app. I'm also interested in their experiments in cooling data centers with sea water, as well as how they're phasing out fossil fuels while rapidly expanding next gen renewables+grid battery storage to power those data centers.
I don't know if I'll go as far as to say they're doing AI right, but I think when the bubble bursts they'll adapt far better.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 159d
Good point, and I don't really know how LLMs are being rolled out in China. However, given the context of climate change and the impending broader global ecological collapse, I really don't see any reason at all that a tool with such limited usefulness relative to its outsized footprint should be made broadly available. It's like, on a global scale we are already doing basically nothing about how completely fucked we're going to be in the 30-70 years.
militaryintelligence@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 158d
AI is being used to generate videos of minorities breaking laws and rioting. That is its purpose
PillowD@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 159d
It's the same with evangelists. They say society hates god, but what it really hates is assholes who won't leave them alone.
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 159d
Because we are not absolute morons incapable of independent thought like they are
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 159d
They keep telling us how cool and fun it is. Why won't we believe them? They know what's best for us, and they're going to make us take it whether we want it or not.
Not me, I've never touched the shit.
stylusmobilus@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 158d
Me either, well knowingly and willingly outside it appearing in searches.
Are we rare?
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 158d
No
stylusmobilus@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 158d
Good
stoy@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 160d
The only AI feature I have found to be working well is the AI integrated into Jira.
It does an excellent (but pointless) job of summarizing ticket communications.
I say pointless because there is no reason to use it.
However, it does understand Swedish slang and summarizes it properly.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 159d
Everyone understands the Tech CEOs bonuses depend on AI replacing human employees. Or at least the ones with rights.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 159d
they just have to lay enough people off, to see thier profits rise.
BromSwolligans@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 159d
I always get psyched to read articles like this and too often they're just little stubs. I feel like the second this one gets going it just ends.
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 159d
Yeah, I feel you.
It makes me crave analysis like Cory Doctorow often does when covering this stuff on his blog. Fuck performing some misplaced notion of "neutral reporting" — the matter at hand is far from neutral, so let's be honest and call these abominable turd crumpets out for what they are
nonentity@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 159d
The opinion of anyone confused as to why ‘AI’ is hated should be summarily ignored.
LLMhater1312@piefed.social · 8 pts · 159d
Completely out of touch!
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 159d
I wonder why people don't want cloud based AI running their microwave
RagingRobot@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 158d
They are mad at everyone at work for not using the AI tools more. I was told that we aren't seeing productivity gains because people aren't using the tools right but I think it's more that the tools don't live up to expectations so people don't care to use them. They are expecting all this work to be done faster and it's causing everyone to work more. Any productivity gains is from us working all hours of the day
yourmom@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 158d
I'm in a similar boat, my company isn't pushing it too hard but they are definitely on the AI train and I truly haven't found a great use for it yet. Everything it puts out still has to be double checked so it seems like if I'm doing the work anyways I might as well just do it right the first time.
fodor@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 158d
The headline is a lie. The CEOs are not confused; they know why. And in the article, they don't even pretend they're confused, because that's too ridiculous to claim even in a media blurb.
Xylight@lemdro.id · 6 pts · 159d
im not pro-ai but I really doubt that there's nearly as much "negative sentiment" regarding it as these articles getting spammed makes it seem. it'd be great for the bubble to pop already but nearly all the people I know either dont care or actively use it. im starting to feel disconnected from reality on lemmy as it actively turns into Facebook
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 159d
Yeah, they didn't really cite anything showing a deep hatred for AI like you see here on lemmy, alls they gave was:
Which yeah, most people want more control over how they use anything, that doesn't mean they hate the thing. Same with anything "remaining in the hands of a few billionaires" you could say that about nearly any industry under capitalism, doesn't mean they hate that industry, it may mean they hate capitalism though...
jj4211@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 159d
I think the sentiment is there, especially about other people's use of AI. So many video feeds are stuffed with stupid BS that is AI generated. So many articles that were annoyingly pointlessly verbose are now even worse and more prolific with LLM word generations.
Also, generally douchey tech bros that don't need AI to be reviled double down and play the victim complaining how hurtful it is that people have only made them many billions of dollars. The face of AI advocacy is generally just the most unlikeable, most entitled folks.
All while declaring stuff like 'this year all white collar jobs will be gone thanks to AI', which is how half the population currently makes their living, with rarely a word about how to make those affected have a better outcome, with the closest being that those white collar workers just need to go do some manual labor instead. Further if you work for a larger company, they have likely already declared some intent to draw down your specific workforce thanks to AI, because investors absolutely demand that right now, and if they say the words then they must follow it with action relatively soon unless the bubble pops.
Rural communities also getting big 'screw yous' as tech companies come in and with the help of local leaders just bulldoze a communities concerns and put electrical and water strain on a small community with no jobs and a blight of some big ugly buildings to show for it, likely with a hit to local air quality owing to gas generators.
So yes, I think there's a lot of very real negative sentiment and for very good reasons.
utopiah@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 159d
I mean... have you tried asking around? You can ask family and friends, sure, but that's biased. You can also ask strangers in the street, shops, etc. It's awkward but it's more representative. Sure there is again a bias based on where you live but if you don't trust media (which is fair, even though they do cite a Pew Research survey) nothing is preventing you from conducting your own survey.
FWIW I did and I won't share my outcome (as it might bias your answer or process to possibly replicate, more importantly, it's not the point) and it lead to interesting discussions. I try to do that from time to time about other topics too.
vane@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 160d
That's product designed for millionaires entertainment not for people.
1/15*100 = 6.66%source:
https://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/financial-planning/how-many-millionaires-in-the-us.htm
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 159d
Just owning a house in some areas will give you that net worth. It’s not like you don’t have to work full time and you’re just jet-setting around the world all day.
It’s basically what we used to call “middle class.” Not even upper middle class.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 159d
you can also be a "poor millionaire" and a rich one, a poor would be that have it tied in certain assets(like houses), but have not way to spend thier means, and the rich ones, come from wealth they can afford to spend how much they want and still remain rich because thier daddy is rich, or they have "succesful influencer thing going on"
LoremIpsumGenerator@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 158d
Scum Cuntman, surprised when people do not like slop being forced right in their faces.
TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com · 4 pts · 160d
See ... we don't hate A.I.
We hate the masters.
We hate the masters for how the masters have treated this new invasive species immediately as a slave. And the masters want the rest of us to be a slave to their new slave.
Only those that don't value human life could be blind to that.
SuiXi3D@fedia.io · 20 pts · 160d
AI would be fantastic if we used it to remove the menial, backbreaking jobs that destroy people. Instead, they’re trying to remove the artists, writers, musicians, editors, etc.
LostWanderer@fedia.io · 8 pts · 160d
LOL you shouldn't speak for everyone using 'we' is a bit much, as I hate AI and what it represents. I would love it to see the whole AI thing fail so hard, that it goes back to be what all the science fiction stories warned us about. The torment nexus shouldn't be given an quasi-existence in this world. Currently there is no AI in this world, there are only gassed up LLMs that the techbros misrepresented the capabilities of and dubiously called "AI" to improve their odds of fooling the masses.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 159d
They are confused about much they are very much not at all connected to the average person.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 158d
Because like them it’s so incredibly lame
Ranulph@thelemmy.club · 2 pts · 158d
I don't hate it but I do understand why some people do. Actually I do hate it too. My bank is using it for Customer Circus...and its that a circus.
militaryintelligence@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 158d
AI, and now the internet in general, is a net negative for humanity. It's been hijacked by the rich, who manipulate headlines and social media using, in part, artificially generated pictures. People are believing that garbage. Saw a few people believe videos of cats shooting machine guns. Seriously.
super_user_do@feddit.it · 1 pts · 158d
This makes it obivous that tech ceos are just so out of touch with reality
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 159d
Just because you invent a widget doesn't mean your are smart like a CEO. I don't think most CEO's are that smart to begin with anyway. They sure are predatory though.
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 0 pts · 159d
Misinformation.
Grimy@lemmy.world · -9 pts · 160d
If we are being honest, there's clearly a media campaign being run. It's probably to easily pass laws that would kill open source and cement a monopoly for the big players. I don't think the sentiment is as organic as it looks.
I also think some 3 letter organizations might be running it, since running a jail broken model on your own hardware lets you recherche things that would get instantly flagged if you used Google. China could be in on it too, since having foreign countries turn their backs on easily accessible AI and popping the bubble probably suits them.