you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 223 points 5 months ago (53 children)

"The question is not whether AI will shape the world. It will," Schmidt said. "The question is whether you will have shaped artificial intelligence."

The problem with Schmidt's perspective, and to some degree that of the linked article itself, is that they take an "AI" future for granted. Like it's a given that we need to adapt to whatever the tech giants put before us.

But the thing is, the only place where (the success of) "AI" is necessary — that's in those companies' projected earnings. They sunk billions into a technology that could be a big deal in certain number crunching research fields, but to recoup the investment they marketed the product as an everything assistant for everybody.

The corporations pushing "AI" into personal computers, into workspaces, into public governance; they're huge, but they're hardly infallible. They may wish, as in "bet their savings", that this utopian tech dream will work out better than the metaverse ...but that's all it is.

They're just trying to talk their ROI into existence. We need to counter that talk, and that future. It's ours to decide over.

  • source
  • hideshow 53 child comments
  • [–] 167 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    it's fucking ghoulish that these salesmen treat a college commencement as just another platform to push their product and grow hype

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I was hoping someone would throw tomatoes or something at him.

    Maybe a brick or two.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    I don't think Schmidt is doing that. He's just drunk the Kool-Aid.

    He's a multi-billionaire either way. For him it's not about making more money. It's about his self-image as an important guy in tech who was still on the cutting edge at 71. I don't think he thinks he's important or relevant enough to shape the future anymore. I think he just wants to be seen as someone who can be invited to conferences and public speaking events because he's still relevant.

    IMO that's a really, really big part of the AI ecosystem. A lot of executives are implementing AI at their companies because they're afraid they're going to be seen as old fuddy duddies who didn't know that the world had changed.

    For most of these commencement speakers, it's more of an "emperor has no clothes" situation than it is a conspiracy to pump up the stock price.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    As we all know, once you're rich, you stop wanting more money. 😉

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    When you're that rich, there are things that matter more than more money. Money is good, but more important is power, respect, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago*

    They want more of everything. They want more power, more respect, and more money. They want it all. They want everything.

    They're hungry ghosts, they just want more and more forever and ever to fill the empty screaming void at the core of their being.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    i don't think you get that rich without your entire brain being rewired to treat money AS power, respect, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Maybe. But, that doesn't mean that you look at a commencement speech to pump up AI stocks. It's more likely that you look at that kind of a speech as a way to prove to the world how smart and influential you are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] 44 points 5 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    Doing my humble, unassisted meatsack best.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Uh-huh. Sounds like something an AI would say. Let's see what's really behind that mask...

    rips off face Ah-HA!!!

    OH, GOD! There's so much blood! Whyyyy 😭

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Ok, I have a note (and happy to run the risk of being ‘boo’d’ for making a ‘speach’. There, I feel better now).

    It seems to me most of the (current) animosity is very squarely aimed at the large corporations, but comes under the general heading of ‘anti-AI’. I was working in that field in the early ‘90s and it had some interesting applications which we’ve seen deliver some real benefits. The recent avalanche of ‘our LLM can replace everything else you have’ is the problem, not AI. And large groups of people tend to prefer a nice black & white answer not a nuanced conversation. I’m not for a second defending Schmidt on that, but I worry the real important stuff will get lost in the noise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    We're on the same page about the problem, I think. And as I said in my original comment, there are absolutely reasonable applications for LLMs, they just won't pay back the investments chucked into the research quick enough. So we get instead our current "AI" moment.

    Now, as a counterpoint to your argument about black and white positions — I see a lot of people filling the gray areas with what is essentially whataboutism:

    • "The next model will be much better"
    • "People said the same thing about the internet"
    • "Sure it sucks and make stuff up, but it's good enough for me"
    • "You can't stop progress"...

    In that context, I think it's important to take a black and white stance, staying off that slippery slop(e) of bad faith arguments. "AI" as it is being marketed to us is bullshit, and needs to stop.

    But once that bubble is burst (and it will one way or another), research needs to continue in a more focused manner into the fields where LLMs can actually make a positive difference (hint: it's neither search engines or your operating system).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Yes, I suspect we are. Having said that, LLMs even today are sometimes useful for search—perhaps only because traditional search has become so poor.

    Whether they are any use or not is a totally different question to whether they’re worth the money being piled into them though. And that’s my original point really—it’s the behaviour of large corporations that’s more of an issue than some large matrix operations doing clever things with language tokens.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Those are not "whataboutisms" lol

    Of course the AI bubble will pop massively, but LLMs not being useful in search engines or your OS is utterly delusional. Of course, I'm not talking about AI on Winblows, but having a locally running LLM could prove incredibly useful for providing support for Linux box. Please be charitable and assume that I'm talking about a well designed system and not some slop that would even dare suggest running commands in the terminal. If you have the hardware, might as well use it right?

    • Prompt: How do I reduce input lag in my game?
    • Response: Disable full screen compositing for full-screen applications via Settings > Display
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    It’ll be sad and unnecessary if we throw the cancer diagnostics out with the work stealing, resource wasting, slop machine.

    It would be a tragedy if we accepted the latter so that we can obtain the former.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    You are creating a distinction without a difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    The problem is pushing a business model that likely seeks to put many of the graduates he’s speaking to out of a job.

    Yes, the other things you say are also true, along with the tactless use of a commencement speech to advertise said business, but telling the people about how great AI is while failing to consider the effects on them is…well, very Billionaire of him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    If a machine can do my job better than me, then a machine should be doing that job. That's progress. Eventually all of this mindless toil should be done by machines so that people have the ability to pursue their dreams. The actual problem is that we've built a society where people need to toil mindlessly in order to live. This could be solved with something like a Universal Basic Income, so if my job gets taken by an LLM I can go back to school and learn a new trade. Or write some books. Or go ramble around Europe as an art bum. Or whatever.

    Having said that, I think that LLMs are being used to replace jobs where the machine can't do it better than a human. It saves the company money in the short term, but it's going to catch up with them in the long term. On the other hand, some people are doing jobs that don't need doing, and replacing those with an LLM doesn't change anything, because the job was bullshit to begin with.

    At the end of the day, people need food, lodging, and healthcare. They don't need "jobs". We should be fighting to get people's needs met, not fighting to keep people in their shitty jobs that they hate anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    We don't need machines to do everything to get that. We already have everything for a post scarcity-society. It's there now. But a lot of assholes want a bigger pile of money, and honestly, I'm pretty sure they don't actually want you or I to exist to get in the way of their utopia which is them hanging out on beaches while robots do everything for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    At the end of the day, people need food, lodging, and healthcare. They don’t need “jobs”. We should be fighting to get people’s needs met, not fighting to keep people in their shitty jobs that they hate anyway.

    On one hand, I agree with you.

    On the other hand, what you're saying is, "Life would be better if we would become wholly dependent on a white supremacist, genocidal, colonial institution".

    I don't think what you're suggesting is possible on the land known as the United States of America until it's no longer called that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    You're assuming everybody in this conversation is American? 🤔 I for one am not part of the "we" you describe there...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    Your nation is either beholden to the imperialist pigdogs which run America or you will be targeted by them. So sorry (truly), but yes, you are "we", even if it's a more extended "we". Maybe you can fly under the radar if your country is both poor and resource-poor.

    ...Aside from that this is a thread about an American university, so

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Economics should be people centered not robots

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Counterpoint, we don't need a society that requires universities to churn out graduates who need jobs. That's it, we have everything we need as a society already, and we are well past the post-scarcity part, but someone always wants a bigger boat.

    We'll all do what we need to in order to get food, shelter, and all the basics. But we are past the point of needing a 40 hour work week, and putting people into menial positions just so they can get a paycheck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    LLMs absolutely have a market. […] content writing, image generation

    Hard disagree on those two examples. That market is exclusively made up of people who a) can't write or make images themselves, and b) have an utter disregard for people who spent their lives doing so.

    I do, however, agree completely with your points re the feasibility of returns on investments into "AI", and the expiration dates on the technical infrastructure. We have been presented with a solution without a preexisting problem — but oh boy, what exciting new problems comes after! /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    LLMs shouldn't be used in place of artists because LLMs can't make art. There's a quote I heard somewhere that sums this up perfectly: "LLMs should be used to help creative people do tedious things, not to help tedious people do creative things."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    That market is exclusively made up of people who a) can't write or make images themselves, and b) have an utter disregard for people who spent their lives doing so.

    And that market is, unfortunately, absolutely huge. There is a frighteningly large demand for mediocre crap.

    The LLM age has shown us how quickly the market is willing to settle for "not nothing" instead of "something good".

    And a worldwide market in the 20 billion range is by no means remotely near the multiple trillions needed to actually fulfills what the AI boosters are promising.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    The LLM age has shown us how quickly the market is willing to settle for "not nothing" instead of "something good".

    You're on to something there. During the "AI" hype, I've seen several people claim that this could be the last gasp for late stage capitalism. Growth has plateaued, and they did not have anything more to sell us at a profit.

    So they introduce a new artificial need, and promote it like their continued existence depended on it... because it does. But that was exactly my original point: nobody needs "AI", except the people peddling it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    In my experience, there are a lot of places very content to do a pretty bad job of stuff if it's low effort on the part of the person collecting the surplus labour value, and is making money.

    The greatest deprogramming I've had through corporate experience is that capitalist myth that competition forces companies to try and make a better product.

    Maybe in the odd case it does. But, for the most part, capitalism is pretty happy to just race to the bottom. A 2% worse product that costs 5% less to manufac6that I can sell for the original price? THAT is what every company is trying to do. Make a better product? Get the fuck outta here.

    There is a market, for AI slop... because it's just a special case of a preexisting major market of "slop". We already had shovelware. Low effort high volume content creators. Telemarketers with accents so think you have to wonder if the costs saved by offshoring those workers could possibly recoup the reduced sales rates. It's all just slop. AI can absolutely disrupt the Slop Market. And it is.

    But, as the other commenter pointed out... it's a tens-of-billions global industry, and AI is being invested in as if its a trillions global industry.

    They need to make AI better, or make the slop industry larger. They won't meaningfully do the first, but can make some headroom on the second. Either way, not nearly enough for profitability.

    Right now my money is on industry to repurpose barely used datacenter hardware which will become available for pennies on the dollar back to consumer-usable hardware.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Although I agree that there will always be produced "content" that is worse than other, I don't think there's any cause to compare human labour to "AI" slop. People can be stuck in jobs they don't care about, most often because of unreasonable work conditions or wages.

    "AI" produces slop because that's what it is made for. That's its dire success criteria, making something that's statistically just above but not quite terrible quality. Manufacturers and employers prefer that over human labour performing similarly, i.e. quiet quitting. Because so far "AI" doesn't have workers' rights. Or higher aspirations.

    And I cannot agree with your point about "telemarketers with accents" as a marker of low quality. That phrasing is a whole thicket of weeds that I'm not wading into.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I'm actually not saying anything is "better" than anything else. I'm saying there is a distinct industrial strategy that involves maximizing engagements primarily through volume of attempts at the minimal cost. It's very much a bimodal reality, clustered around trying to maximize completions against a constrained set of touches, or merely maximizing touches. I didn't mention it earlier, but "scams" also fit this profile. And I'm just calling it all slop. It's the cheapest thing that you can feed the pigs that'll eat anything anyways. Maximize channel saturation at the absolute lowest cost possible, the message itself being largely irrelevant.

    AI excels at that specific task. You can agree or disagree all you want but studies trying to establish "is anyone actually seeing material profit gains out of AI", are seeing this exact pattern. People trying to use the slop machine to do anything besides making slop aren't having a great time. People who's business model is slop are doing great.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago*

    The problem is that it isn't ours to decide in many countries. Billionaires control everything, or at the very least have a 10 ton thumb on the scale and have a monopoly on violence.

    Look at the US, vehement opposition to almost all datacenters over the entire country, the entire voterbase tells their politicians on every level that they all don't want them. What happens? The politicians completely ignore the population and the people that voted for them, use the people's tax money to build the billionaire surveillance complexes that will literally suck all of the water out of the ground and cause blackouts and create maybe 10 jobs.

    We see that here is Europe more and more too, especially with anything having to do with banks. We data centers popping up everywhere and half of new automation engineer jobs are for data center pop ups here in Belgium with 0 option to even publicly dissent, much less vote against them.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)