It’s amazing that if you acknowledge that:
- AI has some utility and
- The (now tiresome and sloppy) tests they’re using doesn’t negate 1
You are now an AI evangelist. Just as importantly, the level of investment into AI doesn’t justify #1. And when that realization hits business America, a correction will happen and the people who will be effected aren’t the well off, but the average worker. The gains are for the few, the loss for the many.
abir_v@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
I feel this. In my line of work I really don’t like using them for much of anything (programming ofc, like 80% of Lemmy users) because it gets details wrong too often to be useful and I don’t like babysitting.
But when I need a logging message, or to return an error, it’s genuinely a time saver. It’s good at pretty well 5%, as you say.
But using it for art, math, problem solving, any of that kind of stuff that gets tauted around by the business people? Useless, just fully fuckin useless.
1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 3 hours ago
I don’t know about “art”, a big part of ai image generation is of replacing stock images and erotic photos which frankly I don’t have a huge issue with as they’re both at least semi-exploitative industries anyway in many ways and you just need something that’s good enough, but obviously these don’t extend to things a reasonable person would consider art, but business majors and tech bros rebranding something shitty to position it as a competitor to or in the same class as something it so obviously isn’t.