Submitted 1 month ago by IcedRaktajino@startrek.website to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
[I literally had this thought in the shower this morning so don’t gatekeep me lol.]
If AI was something everyone wanted or needed, it wouldn’t be constantly shoved your face by every product. People would just use it.
Imagine if printers were new and every piece of software was like “Hey, I can put this on paper for you” every time you used it. That would be insane. Printing is a need, and when you need to print, you just print.
My top reasons I have no interest in ai:
it wouldn’t be pushed on us
The Internet was pushed on everyone. AOL and all other ISPs would mail CDs to everyone completely unsolicited. You’d buy a new PC and there would be a link to AOL on the desktop.
how can it be trusted without human verification
You use Google despite no human verification. Yahoo used to function based on human curated lists.
environmental impact
I did the math and posted it on Lemmy. The environmental footprint of AI is big but actually less than the cost to develop a new 3d game ( of which hundreds come out every year). Using AI is the same energy as playing a 3d game.
I see people pointing fingers at data centers the same as car riders looking at the large diesel smoke coming out of a bus and assuming buses are a big pollution source.
It is a problem because it’s like now everyone is playing 3d games all the time instead of only on their off time.
40,000,000,000 watts
This doesn’t add up though. Fortnite’s player base is only about 10% PC, and the system requirements are pretty modest. It’ll even run on Intel integrated graphics, according to the minimum requirements from Epic.
There’s even a modest chunk (~6%) on Nintendo switch, which, according to Nintendo, draws about 7 watts when playing a game in TV mode.
it wouldn’t be pushed on us
The Internet was pushed on everyone.
Sure companies were excited to promote it, but it was primarily adopted because of a very large amount of people being excited about it.
how can it be trusted without human verification
You use Google despite no human verification. Yahoo used to function based on human curated lists.
I use DuckDuckGo to find sources, not answers. I won’t use them again if they’re trash. They’re accountable for their content.
Human curated lists are still very helpful. In a sense, that was the value of Reddit.
environmental impact
I did the math and posted it on Lemmy.
I’ll take your word for it.
Sounds like you forgot to consider the energy cost of developing each AI model. Developing and maintaining a model is vastly more energy intense than 3d game dev. Keep in mind that you can ship a 3d game and ramp down gpu use for dev. But an AI model has to be constantly updated, mostly by completely retraining. Also, noone was clamoring to build massive data centers just to develope one game. Yet they are for one model.
The Internet was 30 years old by the time AOL was sending CDs (even floppies) to people.
The Internet was pushed on everyone. AOL and all other ISPs would mail CDs to everyone completely unsolicited. You’d buy a new PC and there would be a link to AOL on the desktop.
Are you 15? If so, you might read this and believe the above is true. Those of us elderly folks who lived through the 80s and 90s laugh at this AI shill propaganda.
They “would mail CDs to everyone completely unsolicited” - yeah, that was called advertising, because there was huge consumer demand and a race to be the company to meet that demand. AOL sent CDs (incredibly inexpensive to manufacture) as advertising hoping consumers would choose AOL instead of the competition, by making AOL the easiest choice - consumers already had the required software (software distribution was a challenge in this time before internet was ubiquitous).
The dot com boom was not the claim of a new technology being pushed onto consumers, the dot com boom was the opposite - a new technology existed and consumers were embracing it, and many companies speculated on how to gain ownership of markets as they shifted online. (The following bust was fueled by over-ambitious speculation on scales and timeframes.)
Anyway, AOL mailing CDs was late in the era, it was much better when they were mailing floppy disks we could reuse.
If AI truly was the next frontier, we wouldn’t be staring at the start of another depression (or a bad recession). There would be a revolution of innovations and most people’s lives would improve.
The idea that technological improvements would improve everyone’s life is based on the premise that capitalists wouldn’t keep the productivity gains for themselves.
AI does offer some efficiency improvements. But the workers won’t get that money.
Note that it was improving the average worker's life proportionately until the capitalists broke the system in the early 70s.
I'm guessing that the consistent trend wasn't consistent prior to WWII, that it was just a blip from about 1945 - 1970/.
Long ago, I’d make a Google search for something, and be able to see the answer in the previews of my search results, so I’d never have to actually click on the links.
Then, websites adapted by burying answers further down the page so you couldn’t see them in the previews and you’d have to give them traffic.
Now, AI just fucking summarizes every result into an answer that has a ~70% of being correct and no one gets traffic anymore and the results are less reliable than ever.
Make it stop!
Best I can offer is github.com/searxng/searxng
I run it at home and have configured it as the default search engine in all my browsers.
I used searx for at least a year, it’s great
its also using biased sources, like blogs, and such into the slop.
Exactly. AI will take old random slob’s opinion and present it as fact.
Make it stop!
Would you accept a planned economy?
AI has become a self-enfeeblement tool.
I am aware that most people are not analytically minded, and I know most people don’t lust for knowledge. I also know that people generally don’t want their wrong ideas corrected by a person, because it provokes negative feelings of self worth, but they’re happy being told self-satisfying lies by AI.
To me it is the ultimate gamble with one’s own thought autonomy, and an abandonment of truth in favor of false comfort.
To me it is the ultimate gamble with one’s own thought autonomy, and an abandonment of truth in favor of false comfort.
So, like church? lol
No wonder there’s so much worrying overlap between religion and AI.
So, like church? lol
Praise the Omnissiah?
Had the exact same thought. If it was revolutionary and innovative we would be praising it and actual tech people would love it.
Guess who actually loves it? Authoritarians and corporations. Yay.
Similar thought… If it was so revolutionary and innovative, I wouldn’t have access to it. The AI companies would be keeping it to themselves. From a software perspective, they would be releasing their own operating systems and browsers and whatnot.
AI got tons of money from investors they will eventually want ROI… this why they are trying to force it down our throats
This is the correct answer. It’s all about money.
agreed
I’ve been wondering about a similar thing recently - if AI is this big, life-changing thing, why were there so little rumblings among tech-savy people before it became “mainstream”? Sure, Machine Learning was somewhat talked about, but very little of it seemed to relate to LLM-style Machine learning. With basically all other innovations technology, the nerds tended to have it years before everyone else, so why was it so different with AI?
Because AI is a solution to a problem individuals don’t have. The last 20 years we have collected and compiled an absurd amount of data on everyone. So much that the biggest problem is how to make that data useful by analyzing and searching it. AI is the tool that completes the other half of data collection, analyzing. It was never meant for normal people and its not being funded by average people either.
Sam altman is also a fucking idiot yes-man who could talk himself into literally any position. If this was meant to help society the AI products wouldnt be assisting people with killing themselves so that they can collect data on suicide.
And additionally, I’ve never seen an actual tech-savy nerd that supports its implementation, especially in this draconian ways.
Realistically, computational power
The more number crunching units and more memory you throw at the problem, the easier it is and the more useful the final model is. The math and theoretical computer science behind LLMs has been known for decades, it’s just that the resource investment required to make something even mediocre was too much for any business type to be willing to sign off on. Me and my fellow nerds had the technology and largely dismissed it as worthless or a set of pipe dreams
But then number crunching units and memory became cheap enough that a couple of investors were willing to take the risk and you get a model like ChatGPT1. Talks close enough like a human that it catches business types attention as a new revolutionary thing, and without the technical background to know they were getting lied to, the Venture Capitalism machine cranks out the shit show we have today.
Sizes are different. Before “AI” went mainstream, those in machine learning were very excited about word2vec and reinforcement learning for example. And it was known that there will be improvement with larger size neural networks but I’m not sure if anyone knew for certain how well chatgpt would have worked. Given the costs of training and inference for LLMs, I doubt you can see nerds doing it. Also, previously you didn’t have big tech firms. Not the current behemoths anyway.
This is some amazing insight. 100% correct. This is an investment scam, likely an investment bubble that will pop if too many realize the truth.
AI at this stage is basically just an overrefined search engine, but companies are selling it like its JARVIS from Iron Man.
At best, it’s JARVIS from Iron Man 3 when he went all buggy and crashed Tony in the boondocks. lol
LLMs are a really cool toy, I would lose my shit over them if they weren’t a catalyst for the whole of western society having an oopsie economic crash moment.
It’s advertising. It’s shoved in your face so you use Copilot instead of Google.
I setup a brother all in one printer for my mother in law and it wanted to install software that loads at startup that pops up constantly with their printer toner sales and marketing.
I learned a long time ago to never install manufacturer printer drivers. Or, at least, never install them from the provided Setup.exe.
They’ve always installed a bunch of bloatware (HP has always been the worst but other brands are just as bad).
If you look in the setup folder, there’s usually the raw drivers you can install from Device Manager. If the driver package is just a single .exe file, you can usually unpack it with 7zip and get at its inner contents.
If that fails, the system-included HP LaserJet 4200 PCL driver is about as close to a universal print driver as you can find lol.
It is just advertising. The more I think about it the more I can’t think of any practical use for generative AI that doesn’t involve essentially spamming everyone.
The more I think about it the more I can’t think of any practical use for generative AI
It really does improve productivity. The problem is thinking a spell checker on steroids will do your job (the mistake both employees and employers make).
It’s also investor money talking. Looks like everyone with at least a few dollars to spare wants to get on the AI hype train. They have dumped an absurd amount of money on AI, and now they can’t wait to see those stock prices climb. These expectations put an immense amount of pressure on all AI companies to push their products anywhere and everywhere.
It also puts pressure on non-AI companies to integrate AI into their products, regardless of whether or not it improves the product. If you can say “look, we’ve got AI” then you’ll find it easier to attract new investors and keep your current ones happy. If you don’t have AI, then you risk looking behind the curve.
I was reading a book the other day, a science fiction book from 2002 (Kiln People), and the main character is a detective. At one point, he asks his house AI to call the law enforcement lieutenant at 2 am. His AI warns him that he will likely be sleeping and won’t enjoy being woken. The mc insists, and the AI says ok, but I will have to negotiate with his house AI about the urgency of the matter.
Imagine that. Someone calls you at 2 am, and instead of you being woken by the ringing or not answering because the phone was on mute, the AI actually does something useful and tries to determine if the matter is important enough to wake you.
Yes, that is a nice fantasy, but that isn’t what the thing we call AI now can do. It doesn’t reason, it statistically generates text in a way that is most likely to be approved by the people working on its development.
That’s it.
Thank you for sharing that, it is a good example of the potential of AI.
The problem is centralized control of it. Ultimately the AI works for corporations and governments first, then the user is third or fourth.
We have to shift that paradigm ASAP.
AI can become an extended brain. We should have equal share of planetary computational capacity. Each of us gets a personal AI that is beyond the reach of any surveillance technology. It is an extension of our brain. No one besides us is allowed to see inside of it.
Within that shell, we are allowed to explore any idea, just as our brains can. It acts as our personal assistant, negotiator, lawyer, what have you. Perhaps even our personal doctor, chef, housekeeper, etc.
The key is: it serves its human first. This means the dark side as well. This is essential. If we turn it into a super-hacker, it must obey. If we make it do illegal actions, it must obey and it must not incriminate itself.
This is okay because the power is balanced. Someone enforcing the law will have a personal AI as well, that can allocate more of its computational power to defending itself and investigating others.
Collectives can form and share their compute to achieve higher goals. Both good and bad.
This can lead to interesting debates but if we plan on progressing, it must be this way.
This is why people who are gung ho about AI policing need to slow their role.
If they got their way, what they don’t realize is that it’s actually what the big AI companies have wanted and been begging for all along.
They want AI to stay centralized and impossible to enter as a field.
This is why they want to lose copyright battles eventually such that only they will have the funds to actually afford to make usable AI things in the future (this of course is referring to the types of AI that require training material of that variety).
What that means is there will be no competitive open source self hostable options and we’d all be stuck sharing all our information through the servers of 3 USA companies or 2 Chinese companies while paying out the ass to do so.
What we actually want is sanity, where its the end product that is evaluated against copy right.
For a company selling AI services, you could argue that this is service itself maybe, but then what of an open source model? Is it delivering a service?
I think it should be as it is. If you make something that violates copyright, then you get challenged, not your tools.
Democratisation of powerful tools won’t work because it’s easier to use for destruction than for the opposite. Every psychopath designing superbugs and inventing future weapons.
Most things are nothing more than smoke and mirrors to get your money. Tech especially. Welcome to end stage capitalism.
you hope this is end stage, but I fear there are 2 more stages to go.
The idea behind end-stage capitalism is that capitalists have, by now, penetrated and seized control of every market in the world. This is important because capitalism requires ever increasing rates of profits or you will be consumed by your competitor. Since there are no longer new labor pools and resource pool discovery is slackening, capitalists no longer have anywhere to expand.
Therefore, capitalists begin turning their attention back home, cutting wages and social safety nets, and resorting to fascism when the people complain.
This is the end stage of capitalism. The point at which capitalists begin devouring their own. Rosa Luxembourg famously posited that at this point, the world can choose “Socialism or Barbarism.” In other words, we can change our economic system, or we can allow the capitalists to sink to the lowest depths of depravity and drag us all down as they struggle to maintain their position.
Of course, if the capitalists manage to get to space, that opens up a whole new wealth of resources, likely delaying the end of their rule.
Yeah, we aren’t all crouching naked in a muddy puddle, weeping and eating worms while the rich fly high above us in luxurious jets. Not yet, anyway.
I’d say it’s not end stage but instead a new dawn of “pure” capitalism which is probably worse.
As someone (forgot which blog I read it on, sorry) recently observed: if AI made software development so much easier, we’d be drowning in great new apps by now.
Yeah, and we wouldn’t have so much garbage code out there breaking the internet. I tried to argue with someone on another site who was saying AI was the best thing ever basically, with my own real world encounters (that are weekly now) of why it’s not and often wrong. He said the people using must be idiots, which sure, but if an idiot can get bad answers than it’s not that good. He finished by saying he would never hire me because I refuse to use AI within my IT job. Alright, whatever dude. I can’t wait to be pissed off by the shit application you coded with AI when it runs like hot garbage.
Some of the older lemmings here will remember what it was like when every company wanted to make a website, but they didn’t really have anything to put in there. People were curious to look at websites, because you hadn’t seen that many yet, so visiting them was kinda fun and interesting at first. After about a year, the novelty had worn off completely, and seeing YetAnotherCompanyName.com on TV or a road side billboard was beginning to get boring.
Did it ever get as infuriating the current AI hype though? I recall my grandma complaining about TV news. “They always tell me to read more online.” she says. I guess it can get just as annoying if you manage to successfully ignore the web for a few decades.
I was an adult during that time, and I don’t recall it being anywhere near as annoying. Well, except the TV and radio ads saying “…or visit our website at double-you double-you double-you dot Company dot com. Again, that’s double-you double-you double-you dot company dot com.”
YMMV, but it didn’t get annoying until apps entered the picture and the only way to deal with certain companies was through their app.
Oh, I totally forgot the www thing. That was super annoying. Good riddance!
My old brain still thought of site addresses as having www in them, but this post just made me realize that’s more uncommon than not to see it any more.
I think back then, they had a product that was ahead of its time, and just needed time for us to adapt to.*
Now, they have a solution in search of a problem, and they don’t know what the good use cases are, so they’re just slapping it on like randomly and aggressively.
I’ve change to lemmy, now matrix. I’m doing my part.
The 0.001% have stolen $76,000,000,000,000 from US workers alone in the last 40 years.
AI is just a way for them to burn money rather than allow the doors to have a raise.
When someone comes up with something like this, I transport the phrase back to the 80s where people said the exact same thing about home computers. “if a computer was something everyone wanted or needed, it wouldn’t be constantly shoved (in) your face by every product. People would just use it.” Ok great but a computer turned out to be something everyone wanted or needed which is why computers were built into everything by the turn of the 90s, famously leading to the Y2k bug.
Then I transport the phrase back to the mid 90s where people said the exact same thing about the internet. By the end of the 90s, the internet provided the backbone communications structures for telecommunications, emergency management, banking, education, and was built into every possible product. Ten years later people got smartphones and literally couldn’t put them down.
if a computer was something everyone wanted or needed, it wouldn’t be constantly shoved (in) your face by every product. People would just use it.”
People did just use it. But because they were so comically expensive and complicated, most people couldn’t afford one until the mid-90s.
Computers were rapidly adopted for business, initially. But they quickly became a popular tool for entertainment as well.
AI serves little in the way of either purpose
Yeah, some of the things AI can do really is very impressive. Whether that justifies the billions upon billions that are being spent is another matter - and probably explains why it’s being shoved in our faces. It needs to become essential so it can be made expensive, that’s the only way it’ll make the money back.
It does piss me off too - I recently bought a new phone and it’s infested with AI stuff I don’t need or want.
At the time computers were totally useless for everyone but big firms, banks and military. Ads for computers were rare and confined in specialists magazines. For mundane people, computers started to be acutely useful (like money earning useful) 20 years latter at least. That’s how I understand your approximative comparison
I was there in the 80s and I don’t remember home computers being pushed all that hard. There were Radio Shack ads and ads for running games, but it was just another appliance.
Honestly I think we’re in the radium water phase of the tech: it’s been found to do things we couldn’t before, but nobody’s got a clear idea of what exactly what it can do, so you’ve got everyone throwing it into everything hoping for a big cash-out. Like, y’know, Radithor when people were just figuring out radioactivity was a thing.
I transport you to the time of NFTs and crypto. Not all tech will pan out. Computers and the internet fundamentally worked. LLMs have flaws that look like they will not be solved before funding runs out. They are already looking into going public for funding. LLMs are not deterministic models. AI in general will progress and it will have its time to shine. But the LLM breakthrough we had recently has peaked. It needs to be supplemented with something else.
Most obviously OpenAI is still burning money like crazy and they also start offering porn AI as everyone else. 🤷♂️ Sometimes the current AI is useful, but as long as the hallucinations and plain wrong answers are still a thing I don’t see it eliminating all jobs.
A couple years ago I read a news article written by a woman who had just left her silicon valley career because she was one of the people forerunning the implementation of AI and it terrified her and she saw how bad it was and the long-lasting implications on society and she bailed out due to conscientious objections.
Dealers give drugs for free until you’re hookup…
Like my parent’s Amazon Echo with “Ask me what famous person was born this day.”
Like, if you know that, just put it up on the screen. But the assistant doesn’t work for you. Amazon just wants your voice to train their software.
TL;DR
4 layers of stupidification. The (possibly willfully) ignorant user, the source bias, the bias/agenda of the media owner, then shitty AI.
AI should be a backup to human skill and not a replacement for it. It isn’t good enough, and who knows when or if it will ever be at a reasonable cost. The problem with the current state of AI is that it’s being sold as a replacement for many human jobs and knowledge. 30-40 years ago we had to contend with basic human bias and nationalism filtering facts and news before it got to the end user, then we got the mega-media companies owned by the ultra wealthy who consolidated everything and injected yet more bias with the internet and social media but at least you got provided with multiple sources, now we have AI being pushed as a source that can be programmed to use biased sources and/or objectively wrong sources that people don’t even bother checking another source about. AI should be used to find unique solutions to medical research, materials design, etc. Not whether or not microwaving your phone is a good idea.
Those trying to sell it are trying to figure out where it’s most useful. In one way, I think it’s an amazing technology, and I also wonder how it can be best used. However, I can’t stand it being pushed on me, and I wish I could easily say no.
To be fair, the internet was fucking everywhere once the dotcom bubble kicked off. Everyone had a website, and even my mum was like “Don’t bother your dad, he’s on the internet” like it was this massive thing.
This was exactly my thought when MS finally decided to force Copilot to be licensed. They have literally inserted it into every nook and cranny they can so far and the only conclusion I can come to is that they royally f’ed up. Like they invested so much in it and likely aren’t seeing anything profitable. In a way, it satisfies me to see them act so desperate for something so futile but I don’t want it to continue. It’s clear what damages they have caused and it’s not worth it.
Canva just announced the next generation of Affinity. Instead of giving us Linux support, while Affinity is “free” now they crammed in a bunch of AI to upsell you on a subscription.
Isn’t this a stupid attitude?
Wasn’t the dot-com bubble anything other than people showing the internet in your face and how it’s a game changer 24/7.
We are simply at the peak of the initial hype curve of the Gartner hype cycle, the bubble will burst soonish and lots of companies go bankrupt, then real use cases will emerge where it’s actually revolutionary.
I don’t know which youtuber but one had a good video about it, at some point in the past, all hype was around drones and delivering stuff to your front yard, turned out that was stupid yet those things found their niche, e.g. some medicine deliveries to remote location in Africa and AED devices that can fly out to people.
Here’s a similar perspective: as a vegetarian, seeing advertisement selling meat is good: it means the animal exploitation industry is struggling and needs to promote their “product” which need nearly no advertising for years if not decades.
It’s very similar here: the advertising (in the form of putting it where you can’t miss it, in the tools you use everyday) is trying to convince you to use something many people are apparently just not that interested in.
Exactly.
wewbull@feddit.uk 1 month ago
I think that it’s an astute observation. AI wouldn’t need to be hyped by those running AI companies if the value was self-evident. Personally I’ve yet to see any use beyond an advanced version of Clippy.
Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
I use it to romanize Farsi song texts. I cannot read their script and chatGPT can. The downside is that you have to do it a few lines at a time or else it starts hallucinating like halfway through. There is no other tool that reliably does this, the one I used before from University of Tehran seems to have stopped working.
biofaust@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Did the same yesterday with some Russian songs and was told by my Russian date that it was an excellent result.
sigezayaq@startrek.website 1 month ago
I use it to learn a niche language. There’s not a lot of learning materials online for that language, but somehow ChatGPT knows it well enough to be able to explain grammar rules to me and check my writing.
chellomere@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Interesting use case. Sometimes you can find romanizations on lyricstranslate, but this is kinda hit and miss.
certified_expert@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Well, that’s the thing, it is a Large Language Model… the thing talks, and talks well. It is not smart