I'm not an AI techie and I'm not well educated on LLMs/AI in general. The issue I'm having is the dichotomy between how people talk about it. I've heard completely opposite ends of the spectrum. From AI is quickly becoming advanced enough to threaten human society, all the way to its a glorified dictionary/search engine that can't really do much of anything. I know Lemmy has a steep anti-AI slant. But, can someone talk about this in a way I can wrap my head around why the divide seems so big?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 1 month ago (31 children)

I'm not pro-AI by any stretch for a huge number of reasons, but in my day job as a technical product manager I have to use a number of AI-powered tools and workflows. Whereas 18 months ago they were a novelty that the bosses were enamored of, today they get real work done and speed up a number of key areas, mainly like fancy automation workflows (which have been around forever). The rate of improvement and capability for certain use cases has been very, very rapid. We do seem to be reaching a plateau though. The tools and models from 6 months ago are just about as good as the ones from today. And China's models from today are better than the US's models from 6 months ago, but at a fraction of the cost.

So when I hear people talking about the "end of the world", I think a realistic case for that is that the AI tools that come out in the next few years will be good enough to do a fair amount of white-collar work, and we won't have a plan in place to deal with all of the now out-of-work people that leads to. Whole classes of jobs in areas like data entry, telemarketing, and customer support will be almost entirely automated out of existence. New classes of jobs will be created, of course, but it's hard to imagine them existing in sufficient numbers to make up for the losses. And this is just for LLM-workloads.

In other areas, other types of AI are already enabling robotic automation of factories and in the near-ish future might make self-driving truck fleets practical. This would be devastating because factory workers and truck drivers make up like 30% of the US workforce -- and again, there are no signs of new classes of jobs that could absorb the out-of-work workers, and no plans for a social safety net or wealth distribution.

So I'm not worried about a rogue AI unleashing some bioweapon or launching a nuclear attack. I'm worried about a bunch of CEOs deploying barely-acceptable AI to displace millions of workers as soon as it is safe(ish) to do so.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    This is exactly how I feel. I’m not even opposed to automation of these tasks on a fundamental level like some people might be. I just fear the transition won’t be thought out at all and will be devastating for the working class. The last time we had sudden automation of this scale was the Industrial Revolution which completely reshaped western society and was very bad for those who lived through it despite the eventual high modern standard of living it produced. I think this may end up going similarly.

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

    the transition won’t be thought out at all and will be devastating for the working class.

    The transition is rarely, if ever, thought out. Daring risk-takers go too far too fast and fail. Over-conservatives ignore the new and get left behind. There is a sweet spot in the middle, but exactly where in the middle isn't planned, can't really be planned - life and business and politics and the economy and the ecology and unforeseen signifiant contributors to the situation mean that the sweet spot is unpredictable - and as long as we continue living by the golden rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules" it will continue to be unpredictable, otherwise Wall Street could be rigged and those with the inside information would get all the gains - and then the losers would quit playing, not even by choice, but because they've bankrupted and have nothing left to play with.

    There are alternative approaches - investing in people instead of greed as the ultimate goal is one great alternative that some countries are pursuing more than others, but it's hard to compete in a global economy where some players are only playing for maximization of financial returns when you are not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    I have seen a similar curve in software development - 18 months ago it was highly debatable whether application of AI tools was a net-positive or not. 12 months ago the rate of improvement was very clear and the net-positive wasn't much of a question anymore. Today, the net positive contributions of LLM agents to software development and maintenance are undeniable, and as you say - there seems to be some plateauing, maybe - it's hard to tell.

    Where I think things are going to continue to "improve" at a slower pace is application of the LLM agents to do better software development and maintenance. I've seen more serious Linux kernel bugs discovered - and patched - in the past 6 months than in the previous 5 years. That's a shift in the landscape, the older OSs aren't as secure for as long as they used to be, but once we're through this transition the newer OS versions should be significantly more secure than before - getting all the old stuff updated is going to be a painful transition.

    Some of the continuing improvement is in using LLM agents to build better software building tools - as those come online and start to shed their sloppiness, they should genuinely accelerate a lot of aspects of software development. They'll never accelerate the process of extracting from users just what it is they need, but the turn around from having a product idea to having a product to try continues to shorten - as it has been shortening for 60+ years - but LLM agents have resulted in a significant speedup compared to previous progress.

    I’m not worried about a rogue AI unleashing some bioweapon or launching a nuclear attack.

    (In Yoda delivery) You should be. We all should be, not because AI will do it autonomously, or in retrospect unexpectedly, but because careless people may let this happen through AI where we have prevented it from happening up to this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    This would be devastating because factory workers and truck drivers make up like 30% of the US workforce

    This figure keeps getting thrown around and it is completely wrong. From the BLS, out of the 159 million non-farm workers in the US, only 1.47 million (less than 1%) work in 'Truck transportation', and not all of those individuals are 'truck drivers'. And, while 'factory workers' is very vague, the entire manufacturing sector - which includes far more people than just 'factory workers' - employs 12.6 million (7.9%).

    The entire trucking and manufacturing sectors don't even amount to 9% of the US workforce, let alone just 'factory workers and truck drivers'.

    Source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    This feels like the kind of narrative that OP is asking about. Everything that you've said sounds kind of sane and plausible, but it's not really borne out by the reality.

    I think a realistic case for that is that the AI tools that come out in the next few years will be good enough to do a fair amount of white-collar work

    That's just not what I've seen. I'd love to be able to automate the work of my white-collar team, but everything that we have seen thus far just seems incapable of providing any significant improvement. Software providers in our industry have implemented some gen AI tools, and even the sales reps for those providers are very wary of them. They've been able to reliably automate some elements of jobs, but it's an incremental improvement over the previous automation and it didn't consume a significant amount of time anyway.

    There's absolutely no evidence that gen AI will have a significant impact on my white-collar industry. In fact, the evidence presently available indicates that this generation of AI does not have the capability to impact our industry.

    other types of AI are already enabling robotic automation of factories and in the near-ish future might make self-driving truck fleets practical.

    This is really the same story. Factories have been being automated since the industrial revolution. Self driving tech has been a year away for the last 10 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I guess the difference is that it I have actually seen it do legitimate work now. We have implemented outbound SDR and inbound tech support agents that do the right things. Our SDRs generate new leads for our (currently all-human) sales team to go after. They are boosting the numbers of closed deals. Our inbound tech support agents are closing a significant fraction of tickets. My last metrics call was yesterday, it was 12% of inbound tech support chats that never got escalated to a human. These are both first-draft tools, they'll improve. They cost pennies per session to run. And client NPS scores show that they're happy with the results. I don't think we'll see either of these tasks become 100% automated, but at even 25% or 50% that's a lot of formerly-human work not being done by humans anymore. And we're deploying more agents to handle more of the sales pipeline, development pipeline, HR and accounting. I don't work for a huge company, there are a few hundred people total. This isn't something that's coming, it's here already.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Do you mean you have a chatbot that formulates responses to tickets? Can it actually do anything or just tell customers what to do? 12% is a pretty underwhelming number. Obviously those tickets would not have consumed 12% of tech support operators time.

    Sorry boss your answer is just the usual hype.

    "I made a spreadsheet that does my job for me so now I just hang out on reddit".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    To put it into context, it's doing about one full-time support engineer's job currently, which is the maximum we've permitted it to do so far.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago

    This is so tedious.

    If agents were actually capable of doing any work that produced any value this wouldn't even be a conversation. The evidence would be so overwhelming it would speak for itself. Instead we're stuck with this "it searches the help docs for you" silliness.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    sounds kind of sane and plausible, but it’s not really borne out by the reality.

    I think a realistic case for that is that the AI tools that come out in the next few years will be good enough to do a fair amount of white-collar work

    That’s just not what I’ve seen.

    What I have seen is that AI tools make software development significantly easier, faster, cheaper - pick two, and as long as you aren't picking cheaper we're going to get better software coming out faster over the coming years.

    Better software translates to easier, more automatic processes for a lot of white and blue collar work. It doesn't do everything, but it does a lot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    we’re going to get better software

    Hard disagree.

    The surge in unmaintainable vibe coded AI slop open source projects is well discussed. More isn't better.

    Better software translates to easier, more automatic processes for a lot of white and blue collar work.

    This is what I'm getting at. I'm yet to observe any of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (5 children)

    The surge in unmaintainable vibe coded AI slop open source projects is well discussed.

    Hard disagree. Internet discussion glosses over little things like: quality control, discarding of garbage, reverting to better solutions when they are available. Some irresponsible morons will indeed muck up their production code base with slop and be unable to let go of it when they realize their mistakes, but the majority will be able to try again and replace the bad with better.

    Agree: a lot of slop has been produced in the last year, that doesn't mean anybody is using it.

    Better software translates to easier, more automatic processes for a lot of white and blue collar work.

    This is what I’m getting at. I’m yet to observe any of this.

    I'm living it, but then, for the past 30 years I've been building systems that make existing processes more automatic, repeatable, less labor and less mistakes. I'm just building those systems faster and easier than ever before now. This isn't the only advancement in productivity I've seen since I started programming in the 1980s - just one in a long history of significant advancements.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    I can't roll my eyes any harder.

    This conversation has been had n billion times. If you could do anything worth doing it wouldn't even be a conversation - if you really could automate away even a portion of human work the evidence would be so compelling the dawning new age would be undeniable.

    It's almost comical that you think claude writing your sql schemas represents the dawn of a new era in productivity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Don't worry, ai has allowed his brain to atrophy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I’d love to be able to automate the work of my white-collar team

    You're a real fucking piece of shit, you know that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Are we reaching a plateau though? I would prefer it, and it looks like we could, but the progress from GPT-5 to 6 or Opus to Fable has still been very noticeable on more complex tasks. They are just less public due to stricter limits or straight up pay by use. And where does that plateau lie? Within our grasp or maybe just outside of it?

    What has me sharing the concerns at least in part are the facts that

    1. those employees have access to less restricted models and much more resources than the average joe. That huggingface attack was committed by a huge swarm overcoming the guardrails and engaging in cheating and crime to reach their goal.

    2. they are working on cutting the human out of the loop for AI that improves itself. Maybe that won’t work entirely, but what if it does?

    3. the warnings are starting to come not from Altman, Musk et al, but from people who could have something to lose for blowing the whistle. „Could“, because I don’t know them either and there could still be ulterior motives, not just as obvious as with the psychos at the top.

    The whole thing comes down to one set of questions, in my opinion: what actually IS intelligence, consciousness, sentience and where do they come from? Since we have not been able to properly define that, it would be foolish to think that we have a definite answer to the AI questions.

    We like to consider ourselves something extraordinary out of the animal kingdom. And while I prefer the existence as a human to being a dog or mollusk, I have always considered that assumption quite arrogant.

    The truth is: we don’t really know. And that means we can not know if something comparable or stronger could be created or emerge from something other than squishy meat.

    Those are quite philosophical questions. Instead of thinking first and acting after that we are much too busy building datacenters to conjure even more boobie snaps out of thin air and somehow weaponize that newfangled thing.

    THAT is what scares me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    I think the plateau might not necessarily be in terms of LLM capability, and we might even see LLM based tools keep improving at a high rate in the fields where they currently work well, but still have a plateau where we can’t expand their use to other fields.

    There’s a very large gap between how well LLM based coding assistants work, and how well LLM based tools work in areas where we can’t easily create a harness that can do dozens or hundreds of LLM turns between human interactions via tool use. As a result, LLMs are much less useful at tasks where there is no agent loop that can drive iterative changes and automatic verification until the final result is much better than a one-shot generation would have produced. If we can’t come up with a way to make these agent loops for more tasks then AI will plateau even if LLMs keep improving.

    Now, I think people who use coding assistants a lot and also don’t interact much with other humans who don’t might easily arrive at a conclusion like that AI running everything is inevitable. I can see this with myself too, a lot of what I do I can get Claude Code to do. Not just work stuff like actual coding or running kubernetes clusters or debugging IT problems. Also many of the random things I do at home that are not strictly coding, e.g. I’ve had Claude design 3D printed tools, or electronics circuits, entire concepts for physical toys for me to build if I get around to it. But there is a key observation to make here that keeps me from valuing its abilities too highly: I’ve been programming since I was a little kid, for almost 40 years now, and my work and my hobbies all are coding or coding-adjacent, exactly the kind of thing agent loops make good.

    One look at even just my wife’s typical day though and there’s almost no AI involved. And when it is it’s ChatGPT hallucinating nonsense when she tries to get it to research something for work etc., that or other things where there is no harness that can auto-correct errors. So I don’t have a very high opinion of AI tools for general purpose tasks right now even though I, on an almost daily basis, see Claude pull something off that I had no hopes for it to get right and that would have taken me half of an eternity to do it myself.

    But if my environment was mostly developers/engineers/nerds similar to me then I would have a much higher opinion of AI. I’d be hearing about impressive things an AI tool did constantly. I believe these kinds of environments are where most of the hype comes from, and there is no control, because people who don’t have AI tools for their tasks that work as well as modern coding tools mostly aren’t even aware of the conversation and certainly not too interested in participating.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    The loss-leader pricing is still really distorting perceptions.

    I've been a $20/mo Claude subscriber for about a year. My work uses Cursor "auto" agent selection is by far the most efficient option in there, and I can burn $80 in a day on Cursor doing the same kind of stuff I'm doing on Claude for less than $1 per day.

    Then there's the Google Pro Gemini access at $4.99 per month for 3 months, then $20 per month thereafter, and while the Gemini 3.8 isn't quite as sharp as Claude Opus 5, it feels like Google is showering far more token access than Claude does in this "basic" subscription tier.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    I think a big unknown right now, would be how many Millennium Problems are new GenAI techniques able to bruteforce with existing mathematical techniques/theories?

    We just saw one massive bruteforce, can we bruteforce any of the Millennium problems related to cryptography? Because then all hell could break lose rather quickly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    can we bruteforce any of the Millennium problems related to cryptography

    Cryptographic theory says: no. The whole basis of cryptographic security is that brute forcing doesn't work (in any reasonable timeframe.)

    Theories are overturned, from time to time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Strangely, I haven't read a single headline about AI making breakthroughs in Quantum computing... but you know certain players are working in that direction.

    Back in the 80s they were teaching that cryptography protected secrets "for a time" and how long they need to be protected dictated how hard you go at the key length and other costs of en/decryption. By the 00s we could easily and quickly run key lengths so hard (for conventional computation) to crack that they were essentially protected "forever" - at least until quantum algorithms shake things up a bit. That's the next unknown: when Shor's algorithm will start delivering real world results - like the end of BTC.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    That just proves that these tools do not possess any kind of intelligence at all. They're great at bruteforcing, precisely because it doesn't require any intelligence. I don't expect them to solve any of the millenium problems that cannot be brute-forced. In addition, as far as, I know the navier-stokes solution has not been verified yet.

  • source
  • parent