all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

its not just about the cost , AI doesn't have some of the functionality that humans do

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 46 comments in c/funny@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 64 points 3 months ago (28 children)

    Long ago I learned in an economics class that business is all about exploitation of underprivileged populations. From indigenous people to slaves to poor citizens to “third-world” countries.

    Corporations are running out of people to exploit globally, so the idea of infinite artificial labor is the holy grail of cost optimization.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Most of the shit going on right now can be explained by fatcats in the West, having run out of Economic growth to capture as the West's growth rate pretty much collapsed (quite possible due to the very actions those fatcats during the Neoliberal era, were amongst other things Social Mobility collapsed), have increasingly started pillaging the wealth and productive capacity of the rest of society, or in other words, exploiting everybody else.

    It's a vicious cycle were the tightening of the screws on everybody else leads to lower productivity and higher discontent which in turn leads to further tightening of the screws on everybody else in order for the elites to keep on getting wealthier at the same rate.

    AI was supposed to be a way for the fatcats to be able to extract even more wealth from the rest whist having less exposure to all those pesky natural human and societal responses to that.

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

    For the elites to get wealthier at the same rate

    Its a problem, don't get me wrong, but the real fuck up was they decided they decided they needed gains on the wealth increase rate also. It wasn't enough to just "make money", they HAVE to constantly make MORE making money every turn.

    Making 10% profits (or whateber) ever quarter was no longer good enough, they needed to increase profits every quarter too, 10%, 11%, 13%, the line going up, must also go up at a going up rate.

    They just accelerated it and fucked everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (25 children)
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (24 children)

    Nah. I haven't seen a convincing argument that gen AI is going to coalesce from this shit show.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (13 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    My point is, I don't believe the current AI tech is going to get to the point where it's as useful as humans.

    We have long since reached the point where diminishing returns make significant improvements or advancement unfeasible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    That's not true. Mythos annihilated everyone's benchmarks and now the other companies are all distilling it. They're solving equations that people haven't solved, and they weren't meant to do that. Mythos apparently is designing drugs even though it wasn't trained with that in mind at all. Anthropic launched an entire pharma wing. It looked like things had plateau'd there for a minute but it's back to becoming more real.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    This is the same old hype really.

    Yes, there are things which todays generation of AI is good at, including medical research.

    That's not an indicator of general intelligence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    You are really missing a lot of context here. None of this is true in the way you seem to think it is.

    You are mixing up marketing hype with reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Uh no. I use these things every day. There is a marked and notable improvement that is happening.

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

    You are using these to solve the novel research problems no one else has solved?

    Or you are using them to solve problems you don't know how to solve?

    The things you're saying are marketing hype. Point me to the scientific journal where Claude is credited as a co-author of a research paper.

    Ive also read these articles. I also use LLMs every day. I'm working on building closed agentic loops right now. I think I'm pretty on top of the current state of the art here.

    The truth is much more nuanced and much less exciting than you think it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Actually yes, kind of. I use it to find financial fraud from large public datasets. It wasn't trained to do that, in the slightest.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/

    https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/openai-says-its-unreleased-astra-model-solved-10-hard-math-problems-anthropic-claims-fable-cracked-5-2962067-2026-08-03

    What hype am I falling for?

    A scientific journal where claude is a co-author? First of all, what does that even mean? Like what is that a metric of? You think no one has used Claude to help them with novel scientific problems? I mean, come on.

    And second of all, here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36589923/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Rapamycin+in+the+context+of+Pascal%27s+Wager%3A%2C36589923.++PMCID%3A+PMC9796173.++DOI%3A+10.18632%2Foncoscience.571.

    They banned them not long after.

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

    It gets at the “how” without explaining the “why,” he adds. “One can check out that it’s correct, but it would be nice to be able to tell a story.”

    A.I. could help prove conjectures, but at this point, the models aren’t able to provide reliable, step-by-step instructions for solving them, reports Fortune’s Eva Roytburg. Humans can fill more than 100 pages documenting just one proof.

    Blumberg describes A.I.’s role with an analogy: “Suppose that Moses came down from the mountain with tablets, and on the tablet was written, ‘Cancer can be cured.’ Would you care? You don’t just want the answer to the question. You want to learn something from the answer,”

    Does this sound like AGI?

    Also, this is once again not a novel problem. This was interpolation, not extrapolation.

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

    What does novel mean to you? I'm honestly asking. And what is your benchmark, I am honestly asking. And again, I have not asserted AGI is here, but if the level is "working with a genius" I do think we're there, although I do think the genius is senile, like I said to begin with. So yeah, that sort of sounds like someone who could solve an equation no one ever has before, but would have trouble explaining it. Also the article referenced saying they couldn't explain equations was written before that equation was solved. My guy!

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

    I have not asserted AGI is here

    This you?

    maybe don't adamantly assert it's not here when even most experts aren't willing to do that

    Also the article referenced saying they couldn't explain equations was written before that equation was solved

    Are you saying the link you provided is invalid?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    AGI you mean? IDK It's arguably here. They're senile, though. Working with a senile genius is the best way I can put it, I think. Is it "people?" IDK fuck if I know. How could we ever really know?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    IDK It's arguably here.

    That "IDK" is doing some heavy lifting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    arguably, too? so maybe it's actually like, a reasonable statement? and not the assertion y'all are pretending it is?

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

    M not trying to be super rude here but the truth is, It's arguable if you argue with people who don't know any better. So in that sense, sure.

    When it comes to people that take these things seriously, it's not a really a very hot topic. We're clearly nowhere near AGI.

    Really good LLM != AGI

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

    I don't really know what AGI means, I guess. If we're talking about something that benchmarks as high as the average human, we're way, way past that. If we're talking about something that benchmarks as high as experts in all areas, we're not there, but we're not that far off. When connected to the internet? It's basically there.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/

    They're literally solving problems that humans haven't been able to. They ARE capable of novel concepts, to whatever degree. No offense but y'all seem like your knowledge is like three years old.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    They're literally solving problems that humans haven't been able to.

    If you actually read instead of continuing to spam bullshit you would know this isn't true.

    You say "haven't been able to". This is fucking false my dude. At best it's solved problems humans haven't been bothered to solve yet. The solutions already existed and it assembled them into a proof.

    I don't really know what AGI means

    You don't know what any of this means dawg. You are literally just saying shit that you heard other people say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • OK bro. I guess you can solve 130 year old equations? Or maybe this is a weird way of measuring intelligence anyways and I was just demonstrating that they're capable of executing novel concepts, which they clearly are if they're solving things no one has solved before. Like do you not get how that is the important part? Not that humans can't solve it, it's that we HAVEN'T. The AI, on it's own, managed to solve a novel problem. We did not teach it to solve that problem. We taught it HOW to solve that problem, and then it did. And I was just using math because people say that it's bad at math when it no longer is. It's good at reasoning, it can come up with novel concepts. IDK. This feels like, "AI is whatever isn't."

    I'm honestly asking you what your benchmark would be, because I'm sitting here saying maybe and IDK and I wonder and you're here stating things very rigidly, but somehow I'm the one being accused of having ideological blinders? Mate I asked you what they were bad at now and you just ranted instead. But I'm the unreasonable one unwilling to listen. Okay. Have a nice night, homie.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    If we're talking about something that benchmarks as high as the average human

    Well my calculator can solve a random nine digit number to the power of another random nine digit number faster than any human can, so I guess calculators have been AGI for decades!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 41 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Their desire for quick riches may just turn the masses against them. Maybe.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's amazing to me how fast the executive class jumped on the notion of replacing their workers, although it was obviously too early to know. The idea makes them salivate so much that they showed their hand immediately like children before candy.

    I think the class divide will take a long time to recover. Basically every boss in the world declared to the public, including their own employees, how eager they are to just fire the lot of them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 24 points 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    That’s an interesting thought. Do you think they will downsize boards of directors and slowly whittle away the executives? Either they won’t stand for it to ensure that they and their friends all stay rich, or they can use it to exclude the people they disliked all along and it can be a slow voting out like reality TV. The general egoistic nature of most billionaires makes me lean toward the latter

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    It won't. AI doesn't fire anyone. AI doesn't replace anyone. AI shows the potential of doing the same job as a human, so another human fires that person and replaces them with an AI.

    The CEO isn't going to fire himself. His "replacement" with AI is going to be him using it to make decisions, and feeling so smart about "using all the tools available", but he'll still be there to collect a paycheck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    Building data centers is expensive. But they are an essential part of the AI surveillance state infrastructure that the Trump-Epstein class wants for complete control.

    So this is just a short term expense. It will become much cheaper, like any new tech.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    What do you mean I can't do a wage theft????

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    This is more like what we imagine it's going. In reality, they couldn't care less and will shift gears to keep the line going up and cutting costs. If full AI adoption won't work, then they'll shift resource direction to what they are already experienced in: outsourcing to SE Asia (with AI sprinkled on top).

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Someone must be looking in on my ceo and cto.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Guess who it will get taken out on!

  • source
  • 6 comments in c/programmer_humor@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 29 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The only silver lining in all this is that these fucks will have dumped billions, possibly trillions, into tech they never understood just to end up pretty much back where they started. Still doing substantial harm as they try to force it anyway, but they're not going to get the ultimate results they want, at least.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 51 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    It's almost as though labor is the source of value.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    I really like the last sentence. The implication that he's not firing everyone regardless is hilarious!

  • source