▲ 376 ▼ Remember When Bosses Were Forcing Their Workers to Use AI? They’re Now Realizing They Made a Huge Mistake: "AI is changing not only how we work, but also how we judge the people we work with." (futurism.com) submitted 21 hours ago by eicker@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] baldur@normals.me 2 points 20 hours ago (7 children) Yeah exactly I agree. Weird my comment has a down vote 😬 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Meruten@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 19 hours ago Take a step back and your reply basically says: All of you here that hate AI and have a negative sentiment towards it are wrong. There is nothing wrong with AI. You're simply using it wrong, it's a skill issue. If people didn't have this skill issue, like they did with Google when it first came out, then people would not have a problem with AI. Your comment implies the issue with AI is people misunderstanding it, while ignoring all the other massive downsides, both environmentally and socially. Google situation is not the same as AI. Google replaced your library index, nobody liked trawling through index cards at a library. AI is looking to replace technical expertise. People like having tecnhical expertise, and they like using it, it feels nice and makes you money. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 19 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (4 children) Your comment above is being downvoted because this: That's because they do not know how to use AI correctly, seems to imply that there is a correct way to use AI. In the context of the current generation of labor theft algorithms and surveillance tools, the only correct way to interact with them is as a conscientious objector - which is to say, abject refusal on moral grounds. Failure to abstain from the use of LLMs and their ilk indicates either: Ignorance of the damage being done by these algorithms, their training, and the corporations that develop and operate them (have you somehow been living under a rock?) -or- Complete moral and good sense judgment failure of the individual. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Triumph@fedia.io -6 points 19 hours ago (3 children) "AI" is continually improving prediction models. There are excellent use cases for prediction models, like weather forecasting, or planning distribution of emergency resources ahead of impending disaster. But expecting a desk jockey to expect any prediction model to accurately create anew thing based on a human description of what that thing should be like would require the prediction model to possess its own creativity. That's just not a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 11 points 18 hours ago (1 child) I can only assume that you didn't fully read my comment, because it is specifically not talking about such prediction models. It is specifically talking about LLMs and the related corporations around which all of the current VC hype nonsense is centered. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Triumph@fedia.io -1 points 18 hours ago The early part of your comment said seems to imply that there is a correct way to use AI. LLMs are universally hugbots, telling you what they think you want to hear. That's always going to be a bad way to get accurate solutions. I think we agree on that. There are prediction models that aren't LLMs which can be useful. Your comment was unclear on whether you considered LLMs to be the entirety of "AI" or not. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 17 hours ago and llms are suited for none of those examples you gave. permalink fedilink source parent [–] eicker@lemmy.world [S] -1 points 20 hours ago I suppose I’ll never understand why comments are upvoted or downvoted. Sometimes I get the impression that it’s more down to chance or mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Meruten@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 19 hours ago Take a step back and your reply basically says: All of you here that hate AI and have a negative sentiment towards it are wrong. There is nothing wrong with AI. You're simply using it wrong, it's a skill issue. If people didn't have this skill issue, like they did with Google when it first came out, then people would not have a problem with AI. Your comment implies the issue with AI is people misunderstanding it, while ignoring all the other massive downsides, both environmentally and socially. Google situation is not the same as AI. Google replaced your library index, nobody liked trawling through index cards at a library. AI is looking to replace technical expertise. People like having tecnhical expertise, and they like using it, it feels nice and makes you money. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 19 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (4 children) Your comment above is being downvoted because this: That's because they do not know how to use AI correctly, seems to imply that there is a correct way to use AI. In the context of the current generation of labor theft algorithms and surveillance tools, the only correct way to interact with them is as a conscientious objector - which is to say, abject refusal on moral grounds. Failure to abstain from the use of LLMs and their ilk indicates either: Ignorance of the damage being done by these algorithms, their training, and the corporations that develop and operate them (have you somehow been living under a rock?) -or- Complete moral and good sense judgment failure of the individual. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Triumph@fedia.io -6 points 19 hours ago (3 children) "AI" is continually improving prediction models. There are excellent use cases for prediction models, like weather forecasting, or planning distribution of emergency resources ahead of impending disaster. But expecting a desk jockey to expect any prediction model to accurately create anew thing based on a human description of what that thing should be like would require the prediction model to possess its own creativity. That's just not a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 11 points 18 hours ago (1 child) I can only assume that you didn't fully read my comment, because it is specifically not talking about such prediction models. It is specifically talking about LLMs and the related corporations around which all of the current VC hype nonsense is centered. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Triumph@fedia.io -1 points 18 hours ago The early part of your comment said seems to imply that there is a correct way to use AI. LLMs are universally hugbots, telling you what they think you want to hear. That's always going to be a bad way to get accurate solutions. I think we agree on that. There are prediction models that aren't LLMs which can be useful. Your comment was unclear on whether you considered LLMs to be the entirety of "AI" or not. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 17 hours ago and llms are suited for none of those examples you gave. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Triumph@fedia.io -6 points 19 hours ago (3 children) "AI" is continually improving prediction models. There are excellent use cases for prediction models, like weather forecasting, or planning distribution of emergency resources ahead of impending disaster. But expecting a desk jockey to expect any prediction model to accurately create anew thing based on a human description of what that thing should be like would require the prediction model to possess its own creativity. That's just not a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 11 points 18 hours ago (1 child) I can only assume that you didn't fully read my comment, because it is specifically not talking about such prediction models. It is specifically talking about LLMs and the related corporations around which all of the current VC hype nonsense is centered. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Triumph@fedia.io -1 points 18 hours ago The early part of your comment said seems to imply that there is a correct way to use AI. LLMs are universally hugbots, telling you what they think you want to hear. That's always going to be a bad way to get accurate solutions. I think we agree on that. There are prediction models that aren't LLMs which can be useful. Your comment was unclear on whether you considered LLMs to be the entirety of "AI" or not. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 17 hours ago and llms are suited for none of those examples you gave. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 11 points 18 hours ago (1 child) I can only assume that you didn't fully read my comment, because it is specifically not talking about such prediction models. It is specifically talking about LLMs and the related corporations around which all of the current VC hype nonsense is centered. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Triumph@fedia.io -1 points 18 hours ago The early part of your comment said seems to imply that there is a correct way to use AI. LLMs are universally hugbots, telling you what they think you want to hear. That's always going to be a bad way to get accurate solutions. I think we agree on that. There are prediction models that aren't LLMs which can be useful. Your comment was unclear on whether you considered LLMs to be the entirety of "AI" or not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Triumph@fedia.io -1 points 18 hours ago The early part of your comment said seems to imply that there is a correct way to use AI. LLMs are universally hugbots, telling you what they think you want to hear. That's always going to be a bad way to get accurate solutions. I think we agree on that. There are prediction models that aren't LLMs which can be useful. Your comment was unclear on whether you considered LLMs to be the entirety of "AI" or not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 17 hours ago and llms are suited for none of those examples you gave. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] eicker@lemmy.world [S] -1 points 20 hours ago I suppose I’ll never understand why comments are upvoted or downvoted. Sometimes I get the impression that it’s more down to chance or mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent