US experts who work in artificial intelligence fields seem to have a much rosier outlook on AI than the rest of us.

In a survey comparing views of a nationally representative sample (5,410) of the general public to a sample of 1,013 AI experts, the Pew Research Center found that “experts are far more positive and enthusiastic about AI than the public” and “far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years” (56 percent vs. 17 percent). And perhaps most glaringly, 76 percent of experts believe these technologies will benefit them personally rather than harm them (15 percent).

The public does not share this confidence. Only about 11 percent of the public says that “they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life.” They’re much more likely (51 percent) to say they’re more concerned than excited, whereas only 15 percent of experts shared that pessimism. Unlike the majority of experts, just 24 percent of the public thinks AI will be good for them, whereas nearly half the public anticipates they will be personally harmed by AI.

  • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 days ago

    The first thing seen at the top of WhatsApp now is an AI query bar. Who the fuck needs anything related to AI on WhatsApp?

    • alphabethunter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      Right?! It’s literally just a messenger, honestly, all I expect from it is that it’s an easy and reliable way of sending messages to my contacts. Anything else is questionable.

        • alphabethunter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago

          Yes, there are. You just have to live in one of the many many countries in the world where the overwhelming majority of the population uses whatsapp as their communication app. Like my country. Where not only friends and family, but also businesses and government entities use WhatsApp as their messaging app. I have at least a couple hundred reasons to use WhatsApp, including all my friends, all my family members, and all my clients at work. Do I like it? Not really. Do I have a choice? No. Just like I don’t have a choice on not using gmail, because that’s the email provider that the company I work for decided to go with.

          • Nuxleio@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            21 days ago

            SMS works fine in any country.

            And you can isolate your business requirements from your personal life.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago

          I have 47 good reasons. There’s 47 good reasons are that those people in my contact list have WhatsApp and use it as their primary method of communicating.

            • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              21 days ago

              No it doesn’t. It’s slow, can’t send files, can’t send video or images, doesn’t have read receipts or away notifications. Why would I use an inferior tool?

              Why do you even care anyway?

              • Nuxleio@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                21 days ago

                Meta directly opposes the collective interests and human rights of all working class people, so I think the better question is how come you don’t care.

                There are many good reasons to not use WhatsApp. You’ve already correctly identified 47 of them.

                • alphabethunter@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  21 days ago

                  Hardly ever I come across a person more self centered and a bigger fan of virtue signaling as you. You ignored literally everything we said, and your alternative was just “sms”. Even to the point of saying that the other commenter should stop talking to their 47 friends and family members.

    • sgtgig@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      Android Messages and Facebook Messenger also pushed in AI as ‘something you can chat with’

      I’m not here to talk to your fucking chatbot I’m here to talk to my friends and family.

      • alphabethunter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        Lots of people. I need it because it’s how my clients at work prefer to communicate with me, also how all my family members and friends communicate.

  • Naevermix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    They’re right. What happens to the workers when they’re no longer required? The horses faced a similar issue at the advent of the combustion engine. The solution? Considerably fewer horses.

  • TylerBourbon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 days ago

    I dont believe AI will ever be more than essentially a parlar trick that fools you into thinking it’s intelligent when it’s really just a more advanced tool like excel compared to pen and paper or an abacus.

    The real threat will be people who fool themselves into thinking it’s more than that and that it’s word is law, like a diety. Or worse, the people that do understand that but like various religious and political leaders that used religion to manipulate people, the new AI Pope’s will try and do the same manipulation but with AI.

    • StJohnMcCrae@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      “I dont believe AI will ever be more than essentially a parlar trick that fools you into thinking it’s intelligent.”

      So in other words, it will achieve human-level intellect.

  • turnip@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    https://www.sesame.com/research/crossing_the_uncanny_valley_of_voice#demo

    Try this voice AI demo on your phone, then imagine if it can create images and video.

    This in my opinion changes every system of information gathering that we have, and will usher in an era of geniuses, who grew up with access to the answer to their every question in a granular pictorial video response. If you want to for example learn how white blood cells work it gives you ask your chatbot for a video, and you can then tell it to put in different types of bacteria to see the response. Its going to make a lot of systems we have now obsolete.

    • sgtgig@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      Removing the need to do any research is just removing another exercise for the brain. Perfectly crafted AI educational videos might be closer to mental junk food than anything.

      • undrwater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        Same was said about calculators.

        I don’t disagree though. Calculators are pretty discrete and the functions well defined.

        Assuming AI can be trusted to be accurate at some point, your will reduce cognitive load that can be utilized for even higher thinking.

      • turnip@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        It is mental junk food, its addictive, which is why I think it will be so effective. If you can make learning addictive then its bound to raise the average global IQ.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      you can’t learn from chatbots though. how can you trust that the material is accurate? any time I’ve asked a chatbot about subject matter that I’m well versed in, they make massive mistakes.

      All you’re proving is “we can learn badly faster!” or worse, we can spread misinformation faster.

      • turnip@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        Mistakes will be less in the future, and its already pretty good now for subjects with a lot of textbooks and research. I dont think this is that big of an impediment, it will still create geniuses all over the globe.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 days ago

    If it was marketed and used for what it’s actually good at this wouldn’t be an issue. We shouldn’t be using it to replace artists, writers, musicians, teachers, programmers, and actors. It should be used as a tool to make those people’s jobs easier and achieve better results. I understand its uses and that it’s not a useless technology. The problem is that capitalism and greedy CEOs are ruining the technology by trying to replace everyone but themselves so they can maximize profits.

    • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      Mayne pedantic, but:

      Everyone seems to think CEOs are the problem. They are not. They report to and get broad instruction from the board. The board can fire the CEO. If you got rid of a CEO, the board will just hire a replacement.

      • Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        And if you get rid of the board, the shareholders will appointment a new one. If you somehow get rid of all the shareholders, like-minded people will slot themselves into those positions.

        The problems are systemic, not individual.

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          Shareholders only care about the value of their shares increasing. It’s a productive arrangement, up to a point, but we’ve gotten too good at ignoring and externalizing the human, environmental, and long term costs in pursuit of ever increasing shareholder value.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      We shouldn’t be using it to replace artists, writers, musicians, teachers, programmers, and actors.

      That’s an opinion - one I share in the vast majority of cases, but there’s a lot of art work that AI really can do “good enough” for the purpose that we really should be freeing up the human artists to do the more creative work. Writers, if AI is turning out acceptable copy (which in my experience is: almost never so far, but hypothetically - eventually) why use human writers to do that? And so on down the line.

      The problem is that capitalism and greedy CEOs are hyping the technology as the next big thing, looking for a big boost in their share price this quarter, not being realistic about how long it’s really going to take to achieve the things they’re hyping.

      “Artificial Intelligence” has been 5-10 years off for 40 years. We have seen amazing progress in the past 5 years as compared to the previous 35, but it’s likely to be 35 more before half the things that are being touted as “here today” are actually working at a positive value ROI. There are going to be more than a few more examples like the “smart grocery store” where you just put things in your basket and walk out and you get charged “appropriately” supposedly based on AI surveillance, but really mostly powered by low cost labor somewhere else on the planet.

    • faltryka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      The natural outcome of making jobs easier in a profit driven business model is to either add more work or reduce the number of workers.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        Yes, but when the price is low enough (honestly free in a lot of cases) for a single person to use it, it also makes people less reliant on the services of big corporations.

        For example, today’s AI can reliably make decent marketing websites, even when run by nontechnical people. Definitely in the “good enough” zone. So now small businesses don’t have to pay Webflow those crazy rates.

        And if you run the AI locally, you can also be free of paying a subscription to a big AI company.

        • einkorn@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          Except, no employer will allow you to use your own AI model. Just like you can’t bring your own work equipment (which in many regards even is a good thing) companies will force you to use their specific type of AI for your work.

          • MangoCats@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            22 days ago

            No big employer… there are plenty of smaller companies who are open to do whatever works.

          • Pennomi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            22 days ago

            Presumably “small business” means self-employed or other employee-owned company. Not the bureaucratic nightmare that most companies are.

      • ferb@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        This is exactly the result. No matter how advanced AI gets, unless the singularity is realized, we will be no closer to some kind of 8-hour workweek utopia. These AI Silicon Valley fanatics are the same ones saying that basic social welfare programs are naive and un-implementable - so why would they suddenly change their entire perspective on life?

        • AceofSpades@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          This vision of the AI making everything easier always leaves out the part where nobody has a job as a result.

          Sure you can relax on a beach, you have all the time in the world now that you are unemployed. The disconnect is mind boggling.

          • MangoCats@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            22 days ago

            Universal Base Income - it’s either that or just kill all the un-necessary poor people.

  • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 days ago

    AI has it’s place, but they need to stop trying to shoehorn it into anything and everything. It’s the new “internet of things” cramming of internet connectivity into shit that doesn’t need it.

    • poopkins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      You’re saying the addition of Copilot into MS Paint is anything short of revolutionary? You heretic.

      • Womble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        Translations apps would be the main one for LLM tech, LLMs largely came out of google’s research into machine translation.

        • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago

          If that’s the case and LLM are scaled up translation models shoehorned into general use, it makes sense that they are so bad at everything else.

    • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      Every technology shift creates winners and losers.

      There’s already documented harm from algorithms making callous biased decisions that ruin people’s lives - an example is automated insurance claim rejections.

      We know that AI is going to bring algorithmic decisions into many new places where it can do harm. AI adoption is currently on track to get to those places well before the most important harm reduction solutions are mature.

      We should take care that we do not gaslight people who will be harmed by this trend, by telling them they are better off.

  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 days ago

    It’s not really a matter of opinion at this point. What is available has little if any benefit to anyone who isn’t trying to justify rock bottom wages or sweeping layoffs. Most Americans, and most people on earth, stand to lose far more than they gain from LLMs.

    • doodledup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      Everyone gains from progress. We’ve had the same discussion over and over again. When the first sewing machines came along, when the steam engine was invented, when the internet became a thing. Some people will lose their job every time progress is made. But being against progress for that reason is just stupid.

      • 7toed@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        And as someone who has extensively set up such systems on their home server… yeah it’s a great google home replacement, nothing more. It’s beyond useless on Powerautomate which I use (unwillingly) at my job. Copilot can’t even parse and match items from two lists. Despite my company trying its damn best to encourage “our own” (chatgpt enterprise) AI, nobody i have talked with has found a use.

        • doodledup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          You’re using it wrong then. These tools are so incredibly useful in software development and scientific work. Chatgpt has saved me countless hours. I’m using it every day. And every colleague I talk to agrees 100%.

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            21 days ago

            I’ve found it primarily useless to harmful in my software development, making the work debugging poorly-structured code the major place that time is spent. What sort of software and language do you use it for?

          • 7toed@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            22 days ago

            I’ll admit my local model has given me some insight, but in researching more of something, I find the source it likely spat it out from. Now that’s helpful, but I feel as though my normal search experience wasn’t so polluted with AI written regurgitation of the next result down, I would’ve found the nice primary source. One example was a code block that computes the inertial moment of each rotational axis of a body. You can try searching for sources and compare what it puts out.

            If you have more insight into what tools, especially more i can run local that would improve my impression, i would love to hear. However my opinion remains AI has been a net negative on the internet as a whole (spam, bots, scams, etc) thus far, and certainly has not and probably will not live up to the hype that has been forecast by their CEOs.

            Also if you can get access to powerautomate or at least generally know how it works, Copilot can only add nodes seemingly in a general order you specify, but does not connect the dataflow between the nodes (the hardest part) whatsoever. Sometimes it will parse the dataflow connections and return what you were searching for (ie a specific formula used in a large dataflow), but not much of which seems necessary for AI to be doing.

            • MangoCats@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              22 days ago

              I think a lot depends on where “on the curve” you are working, too. If you’re out past the bleeding edge doing new stuff, ChatGPT is (obviously) going to be pretty useless. But, if you just want a particular method or tool that has been done (and published) many times before, yeah, it can help you find that pretty quickly.

              I remember doing my Masters’ thesis in 1989, it took me months of research and journals delivered via inter-library loan before I found mention of other projects doing essentially what I was doing. With today’s research landscape that multi-month delay should be compressed to a couple of hours, frequently less.

              If you haven’t read Melancholy Elephants, it’s a great reference point for what we’re getting into with modern access to everything:

              https://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html

          • MangoCats@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            22 days ago

            If you were too lazy to read three Google search results before, yes… AI is amazing in that it shows you something you ask for without making you dig as deep as you used to have to.

            I rarely get a result from ChatGPT that I couldn’t have skimmed for myself in about twice to five times the time.

            I frequently get results from ChatGPT that are just as useless as what I find reading through my first three Google results.

            • doodledup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              21 days ago

              You’re using it wrong. My experience is different from yours. It produces transfer knowledge in the queries I ask it. Not even hundreds of Google searches can replace transfer knowledge.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            22 days ago

            Then you must know something the rest of us don’t. I’ve found it marginally useful, but it leads me down useless rabbit holes more than it helps.

            • MangoCats@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              22 days ago

              I’m about 50/50 between helpful results and “nope, that’s not it, either” out of the various AI tools I have used.

              I think it very much depends on what you’re trying to do with it. As a student, or fresh-grad employee in a typical field, it’s probably much more helpful because you are working well trod ground.

              As a PhD or other leading edge researcher, possibly in a field without a lot of publications, you’re screwed as far as the really inventive stuff goes, but… if you’ve read “Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman!” there’s a bit in there where the Manhattan project researchers (definitely breaking new ground at the time) needed basic stuff, like gears, for what they were doing. The gear catalogs of the day told them a lot about what they needed to know - per the text: if you’re making something that needs gears, pick your gears from the catalog but just avoid the largest and smallest of each family/table - they are there because the next size up or down is getting into some kind of problems engineering wise, so just stay away from the edges and you should have much more reliable results. That’s an engineer’s shortcut for how to use thousands, maybe millions, of man-years of prior gear research, development and engineering and get the desired results just by referencing a catalog.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                21 days ago

                My issue is that I’m fairly established in my career, so I mostly need to reference things, which LLMs do a poor job at. As in, I usually need links to official documentation, not examples of how to do a thing.

                That’s an engineer’s shortcut for how to use thousands, maybe millions, of man-years of prior gear research, development and engineering and get the desired results just by referencing a catalog.

                LLMs aren’t catalogs though, and they absolutely return different things for the same query. Search engines are tells catalogs, and they’re what I reach for most of the time.

                LLMs are good if I want an intro to a subject I don’t know much about, and they help generate keywords to search for more specific information. I just don’t do that all that much anymore.

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          AI search is occasionally faster and easier than slogging through the source material that the AI was trained on. The source material for programming is pretty weak itself, so there’s an issue.

          I think AI has a lot of untapped potential, and it’s going to be a VERY long time before people who don’t know how to ask it for what they want will be able to communicate what they want to an AI.

          A lot of programming today gets value from the programmers guessing (correctly) what their employers really want, while ignoring the asks that are impractical / counterproductive.

      • msage@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        The current drive behind AI is not progress, it’s locking knowledge behind a paywall.

        As soon as one company perfects their AI, it will draw everyone to use it, marketing it as ‘time saver’ so you don’t have to do anything (including browsing the web, which is in decline even now). Just ask and you shall receive everything.

        Once everyone gets hooked, and there won’t be any competiton left, they will own the population. News, purchase recommendations, learning, everything we do to work on our congitive abilities will be sold through a single vendor.

        Suddenly you own the minds of many people, who can’t think for themselves, or search for knowledge on their own… and that’s already happening.

        And it’s not the progress I was hoping to see in my lifetime.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        being against progress for that reason is just stupid.

        Under the current economic model, being against progress is just self-preservation.

        Yes, we could all benefit from AI in some glorious future that doesn’t see the AI displaced workers turned into toys for the rich, or forgotten refuse in slums.

        • doodledup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          We are ants in an anthill. Gears in a machine. Act like it. Stop thinking in classes “rich vs. poor” and conspiracies. When you become obsolete it’s nobody’s fault. This always comes from people who don’t understand how this world economy works.

          Progress always comes and finds its way. You can never stop it. Like water in a river. Like entropy. Adapt early instead of desperately forcing against it.

          • MangoCats@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            20 days ago

            We are ants in an anthill. Gears in a machine. Act like it.

            See Woody Allen in AntZ (1998 movie)

            Adapt early instead of desperately forcing against it.

            There should be a balance. Already today’s world is desperately thrashing to “stay ahead of the curve” and putting outrageous investments into blind alleys that group-think believes is the “next big thing.”

            The reality of automation could be an abundance of what we need, easily available to all, with surplus resources available for all to share and contribute to as they wish - within limits, of course.

            It’s going to take some desperate forcing to get the resources distributed more widely than they currently are.

        • doodledup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago

          We don’t know it yet. I can’t see the future and you neither. But you cannot question the fact that AI has made a lot of things more efficient. And efficiency always brings progress in one way or the other.

      • tane@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        Man it must be so cool going through life this retarded. Everything is fine, so many more things are probably interesting….lucky

        • doodledup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          Your comment doesn’t exactly testify intelligence yourself.

          You might want to elaborate on some arguments actually relate to the comment you’re responding to.

      • Melobol@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        I’m not sure at this point. The sewing machine was just automated stitching. It is more similar to Photos and landscape painters, only it is worse.
        With the creative AI basically most of the visual art skills went to “I’m going to pay 100$ for AI to do this instead 20K and waiting 30 days for the project”. Soon doctors, therapists and teachers will look down the barrel. “Why pay for one therapy session for 150 or I can have an AI friend for 20 a month”.
        In the past you were able to train yourself to use sewing machine or learn how to operate cameras and develop photos. Now I don’t even have any idea where it goes.

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          Machine stitching is objectively worse than hand stitching, but… it’s good enough and so much more efficient, so that’s how things are done now; it has become the norm.

          • Melobol@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            21 days ago

            Good enough is the keyword in a lot of things. That’s how fast fashion got this big.

            • MangoCats@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              20 days ago

              Fast fashion (and everything else in the commercial marketplace) needs to start paying for their externalized costs - starting with landfill space, but also the pollution and possibly social supports that are going into the delivery of their products. But, then, people are stupid when it comes to fashion, they’ll pay all kinds of premiums if it makes them look like their friends.

        • doodledup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          AI is changing the landscape of our society. It’s only “destroying” society if that’s your definition of change.

          But fact is, AI makes every aspect where it’s being used a lot more productive and easier. And that has to be a good thing in the long run. It always has.

          Instead of holding against progress (which is impossible to do for long) you should embrace it and go from there.

          • GenosseFlosse@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            22 days ago

            I use AI for programming questions, because it’s easier than digging 1h through official docs (if they exists) and frustrating trial and error.

            However quite often the ai answers are wrong by inserting nonsense code, using for instead of foreach or trying to access variables that are not always set.

            Yes it helps, but it’s usually only 60% right.

            • Tony Wu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              21 days ago

              I used to do this, but not anymore. The amount of time I have to spend to verify it and correct it sometimes takes longer than if I were just to do it myself, and the paranoia that comes with it isn’t worth the time for me anymore.

          • MangoCats@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            22 days ago

            AI makes every aspect where it’s being used a lot more productive and easier.

            AI makes every aspect where it’s being used well a lot more productive and easier.

            AI used poorly makes it a lot easier to produce near worthless garbage, which effectively wastes the consumers’ time much more than any “productivity gained” on the producer side.

          • Melobol@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            21 days ago

            The worry is deeper than just different changes in production. Not all progress is good, think of the broken branches of the evolution.
            The fact that us don’t teach kids how to write already took a lot of different childhood development and later brain development and memory improvement out of the run.
            Qith ai now drawing, writing and music became a single sentence prompt. So why keep all those things? Why literally waste time developing a skill that you can not sell? Sure for fun…
            And you are bringing up efficiency. Efficiency is just a buzzword that big companies are using to replace human labor. How much more efficient is a bank where you have 4 machine and one human teller? Or a fast food restaurant where the upfront employee just delivers the food to the counter and you can only place order with a computer.
            There is a point where our monkey brains can’t compete and won’t be able to exist without human to human stuff. But I don’t need to worry in 2 years we will be not able to differentiate between ai and humans. And we can just fake that connection for the rest of our efficient lifes.
            I’m not against improving stuff, but qhere this is focused won’t help us in the long run…

            • doodledup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              21 days ago

              That’s the first interesting argument I’m reading here. Glad someone takes an honest stance in this discussion instead of just “rich vs poor”, “but people will lose jobs” and some random conspiracies in between.

              To your comment: I agree with your sentiment that AI will make it challenging for new brains to evolve as solving difficult tasks is a problem we will encounter much less in the future. I actually never thought about it that way. I don’t have a solution for that. I think it will have two outcomes: humans will lose intelligence, or humans will develop different intelligence in a way that we don’t understand yet today.

              And you are bringing up efficiency. Efficiency is just a buzzword that big companies are using to replace human labor. How much more efficient is a bank where you have 4 machine and one human teller? Or a fast food restaurant where the upfront employee just delivers the food to the counter and you can only place order with a computer.

              I disagree with that. Efficiency is a universal term. And humanity has always striven to do things more efficient because it increases the likelihood of survival and quality of life in general. It’s a very natural thing and you cannot stop it. Much as you cannot stop entropy. Also, I think making things more efficient is good for society. Everything becomes easier, more available, and more fun. I can see a far future where humans no longer need to work and can do whatever they want with their day. Jobs will become hobbies and family and friends are what you care about most.

              • Melobol@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                21 days ago

                I do not agree that efficiency is good.
                If its is good, we would live like we keep pigs and chickens in meat farms. More efficient is to eat bug based protein, and why waste time on eating instead of 100% meal replacement foods.
                Why keep people with disabilities or with different “colors of skin” (insert any other thing there) from the most “efficient” ones?
                The best way to think is Matrix-esqe pods for humans and living in a simulation.
                Only bad part of that picture is that we are not needed at all.

                And these are the dark points of unlimited change.
                We all know capitalism is very bad for the majority. We know big money do not care about marginalized groups. These are all just numbers. And at the end you and I we are all numbers that can be cut. I’m probably not going to be alive, but I hope for a bright future for the upcoming generations. The problem is that I do see AI potentially darkening their skies.
                Don’t get me wrong AI can be a great tool if you learn how to use it. But the benefits are not going to be in the people hands.

                We need a general society overhaul where not the profit is the only thing that matters. Efficiency is good when you burn renewable wooden pellets and you want to get the most out of the chemical reaction. Efficiency is good when you are using the minimum amount of material to build something (with 3x oversized safety measures). But efficiency in AI and in social terms are going to be a problem.

                Humans will not have worry free lives in current society. All the replaced labor keeps the earnings in the stockholders hands. But this went really far from AI. Sorry for the rant, but I do worry for the future.
                I believe blindly accepting something before even attempting to look into the pitfalls not a great idea. And we never see all the pitfalls coming.

            • doodledup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              21 days ago

              Are you a poor kid or something? Like what kind of question even is this? Why does it even need to be personal at all? This thread is not about me…

              And no. I’m not. I stand to inherit nothing. I’m still a student. I’m not wealthy or anything like that.

              • FourWaveforms@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                20 days ago

                Because you write like you think this can’t reach you, like you’re always going to have food and shelter no matter what happens.

                • doodledup@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  19 days ago

                  If it reaches me, so be it. That’s life. Survival of the fittest. It’s my own responsibility to do the best in the environment I live in.

      • function IsOdd():@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        Everyone gains from progress.

        It’s only true in the long-term. In the short-term (at least some) people do lose jobs, money, and stability unfortunately

        • doodledup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago

          That’s true. And that’s why so many people are frustrated. Because the majority is incredibly short-sighted unfortunately. Most people don’t even understand the basics of economics. If everyone was the ant in the anthill they’re supposed to be we would not have half as many conflics as we have.

  • PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 days ago

    The amount of failed efforts the ruling class has made to corner ai shows me that it is a democratizing force.

    I reap benefits from it already.

    I can create local models with zero involvement from billionaires.

    It scares them more than us.

    And it should. It shows how evil they are. It’s objectively true. Ai knows it.

    • nadram@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      But you’re using these billionaires’ ai models are you not? Even if you use the free models they still benefit from your profile and query data

        • einkorn@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          Uhm, I guess you missed the news when it was revealed that Deepseek had a little more backing than they claimed.

        • mesa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          Yep you can run models without giving $$ to tech billionaires!

          Now we are giving it to the power billionaires! unless you own your own power sources.

            • mesa@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              22 days ago

              Meh I like some of the others on hugging face a bit more for coding and such. But its all the same at the end of the day. I do like what you are saying though!

              Models + moderate power should be what we strive for. I’m hoping for a star trek ending where we live in a post scarcity world. Im planing on a post apocalypse haha.

              Once ASIC chips come out (essentially a specific model on a chip) the amount of power we use will be dramatically less.

                • mesa@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  22 days ago

                  Its an interesting field! I think the reason we have not gone there is the LLM specific models all have very different models/languages/etc… right now. So the algorithms that create them and use them need flexibility. GPUs are very flexible with what they can do with tier multiprocessing.

                  But in 5 years (or less) time, I can see a black box kinda system that can run 1000x+ speed that will make GPU LLMs obsolete. All the new GPU farm places that are popping up will have a rude awakening lol.

    • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      There is a BIG difference between what you can do and what you should do.

      We have ZERO understanding on the long term effects this new technology will have on our civilization.

      Why is everybody so eager to go “all in”?

      • PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        We have zero understanding of the long term effect of any new tech on our civilization

        But we know those who adopt early and gain mastery quickly are set up better for success in the future.

        Every time.

        • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          Not understanding sparrows role in the game caused by the Four Pests campaign. MILLIONS DEAD.

          The ecological repercussions translated into a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions. The absence of sparrows, which traditionally kept locust populations in check, allowed swarms to ravage fields of grain and rice. The resulting agricultural failures, compounded by misguided policies of the Great Leap Forward, triggered a severe famine from 1958 to 1962. The death toll from starvation during this period reached 20 to 30 million people.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign#Consequences

              • PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                21 days ago

                You should check out twitter. It’s like the place for insecure people to impotently rage that someone said some words that weren’t good enough.

                Best wishes I guess. You seem to need them.

                • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  21 days ago

                  You seem to need to tell people what they didn’t say and tell them where you want them to go.

                  So… Could be a Republican, or a troll farm, or an A.I. extension for Chrome, or a bot, or my Ex (we still don’t get along).

                  Say another stupid thing so I can figure it out.

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            21 days ago

            We also didnt understand how the internet would change the world, still went ahead with it. We didnt understand how computers would change the world, still went ahead with it, we didnt understand how the steam engine would change the world… etc etc.

            No one can know how a new invention will change things, but you are not going to be able to crush human’s innate creativity and drive to try new things. Sometimes those things are going to be a net negative and that’s bad, but the alternative is to insist nothing new is tried and thats A bad and B not possible.

        • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          Sort of like what the tobacco industry did? Hide the truth under corporate profits?

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      More like asking the slaves about productivity advances in slavery. “Nothing good will come of this”.

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 days ago

          The cotton gin has been used as an argument for why slavery finally became unacceptable. Until then society “needed” slaves to do the work, but with the cotton gin and other automations the costs of slavery started becoming higher than the value.

          • CarnivorousCouch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            22 days ago

            My understanding is that the cotton gin led to more slavery as cotton production became more profitable. The machine could process cotton but not pick it, so more hands were needed for field work.

            Wiki:

            The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the region became even more dependent on plantations that used black slave labor, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of its economy.[35] While it took a single laborer about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day.[36] The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850."

            • MangoCats@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              21 days ago

              That is also true, the cotton gin wasn’t the total economic turning point, and the Civil War pre-dated automation’s economic turning of the corner against some economic measures of slavery’s cost, but slavery has very difficult to quantify costs, it was an entrenched lifestyle much more than a pool of day labor hanging out at Home Depot waiting for work, where both employers and employees could easily change their ways on very short notice.

              After the Civil War it looks like “free person” cotton harvesting labor persisted until about 1926 - that could have changed earlier, but farm owners needed a kick in the butt to figure out how to improve:

              https://www.printmag.com/creative-voices/lessons-from-cottons-slow-motion-robot-takeover/

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      Al Gore’s family thought that the political tide was turning against it, so they gave up tobacco farming in the late 1980s - and focused on politics.