Comment on Mozilla’s new CEO is doubling down on an AI future for Firefox

• FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Data for the claim that lots of tech-savvy people are developing and using AI? Some of the biggest tech companies in the world right now have an AI focus. NVIDIA, OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, they're all making massive use of AI. If you want to discount "corporate" tech-savvy people, This page indicates 15 million developers are using GitHub Copilot. Linus Torvalds has spoken in favor of using AI to maintain Linux, if you'd like someone specific and big-name as an example.

  source

  • baines@lemmy.cafe ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    tech bros and their employees lmao

    and Linus has said some stupid shit over the years

    source

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      AKA, tech-savvy people.

      source

      • baines@lemmy.cafe ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        tech bros are some of the least savvy anything

        Linus loves to say stupid shit and walk it back later

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Jhex@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    the keyword word you missed was “unbiased”

    of course the AI peddlers will peddle it and their employees would probably be fired if they did not toe the company line

    on the otheer hand, that mit studyshowed 95v of them failed… I find it hard to believe people enjoy failing

    source

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      So we've moved from "no tech-savvy people use AI!" to "lots of tech-savvy people use AI, but many of them fail to make it profitable!"

      The Commerce Institute puts that 95% figure in perspective, about 65.3% of all businesses fail by their tenth year. That's not focusing just on a particular industry that's the most unknown and volatile one, that's everything, including fields that have been well known and understood for decades. And I should also note, your source said 95% had yet to grow their revenue, not that 95% had failed - it's only been a year or two for most.

      Your own source provides some other bits of information that support my view, too. Just look past the bias in how it's worded.

      Previous tests show even the most advanced AI products successfully complete only about 30 percent of assigned office tasks.

      Wow, only 30% of office tasks can be handled by AI? Clearly a useless technology, throw it away.

      Or maybe 30% is actually quite an impressive number. Wouldn't you like something that handles 30% of your routine work for you?

      Gartner’s survey of 163 business executives found that half have abandoned plans to dramatically cut customer service staff by 2027.

      So, half of them haven't abandoned those plans.

      Research from GoTo and Workplace Intelligence found that 62 percent of workers believe AI is “significantly overhyped.”

      I don't see a link to that research, but that means 38% don't believe AI is significantly overhyped.

      I never said everyone liked AI, just that lots of tech-savvy people did. I think 38% would count as null

      Basically, you're falling into the trap of assuming if something's not perfect and not universally loved then it must be awful and universally hated. Communities like this reinforce that view, but the real world outside these digital walls is not like that.

      source

      • Jhex@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        So we’ve moved from “no tech-savvy people use AI!” to “lots of tech-savvy people use AI, but many of them fail to make it profitable!”

        No, we are trying to tease out if “tech savvy people” use AI at gun point or not because if it is at gun point, it disarms your argument

        The Commerce Institute puts that 95% figure in perspective, about 65.3% of all businesses fail by their tenth year. That’s not focusing just on a particular industry that’s the most unknown and volatile one, that’s everything, including fields that have been well known and understood for decades. And I should also note, your source said 95% had yet to grow their revenue, not that 95% had failed - it’s only been a year or two for most.

        These are not new business (not all at least, these are already viable businesses trying to reap the promises of AI and failing miserably. You can interpret however you want but I interpret that as “most of these business bought the snake oil and it did not cure their hiccups”

        Wow, only 30% of office tasks can be handled by AI? Clearly a useless technology, throw it away.

        Again, what is the expectation being sold out there? 30 % increase in preformance? or “we WOn’T nEEd progRAmMers iN 3 yEars”?

        So, half of them haven’t abandoned those plans.

        Meaning what? sunk cost fallacy? deeper pockets to hold on and see if they can fix it? deeper pockets and being able to hide the huge mistake this was? I can speculate in the opposite direction you are, just as easily

        I don’t see a link to that research, but that means 38% don’t believe AI is significantly overhyped.

        If my job depends on saying you are correct… Mr. FaceDeer you are always correct, the most correct ever.

        This ties to my previous comment that we need to find unbiased sources and that would include people that use AI because they want to, not because their livelihood depends on it

        Basically, you’re falling into the trap of assuming if something’s not perfect and not universally loved then it must be awful

        Not even close… what I am seeing is that AI peddlers promised elephants but they are delivering something that looks like a large dog with no cool trunk

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        In the US, the number of adults using ChatGPT has been increasing, whether for work, learning something new, or entertainment.

        And what’s most interesting is that those who use ChatGPT the most are people with postgraduate degrees, followed by those with bachelor’s degrees, college, and high school (who use it the least).

        pewresearch.org/…/34-of-us-adults-have-used-chatg…

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • selokichtli@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Those are blatantly not people, they aren’t even human.

    source