Wonder on what you guys think about this, if the future of work requires us to use AI/AI agents, and this is tied to a personal account (tied to our ID) how will that change work and our lives? Every tiny mistake, any curiosity, any eureka moment or inefficiency, all of those will be recorded, tied to your identity, forever and ever to the end of time. It freaks me out...

all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 24 points 2 days ago (1 child)

Or. OR.

You say fuck AI and don't use any device with an agent on it, and keep your personal data secured like we did in the 90s and 2000s.

The techbros did a real number on people it seems. None of their tech is vital or needed unless we allow it to be. You can just have a NAS and Keepass. If AI is not a choice, then fuck the cloud.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] [S] -6 points 2 days ago

    Thing is, we WILL allow it to be, most people are not on the fediverse or session/signal/simpleX, they don't give a shit about their privacy. Techbros, or corporations don't really need 100% of the people to be on board for this to become mainstream, and hell, while i choose not to use it, AI is creeping into even my banking and online shopping apps, I also can't even look up something to buy without logging in now, so every single search I do is tracked. There's no other option for online shopping in my country that even comes close to that one, so you default to using it.

    I don't know what a NAS is, but yes, local AI is something I'd really like to get into (can't atm due to money, but i will when I can save up) I think this will become so much more of a productive way to work that while we won't be "forced" directly into it, we will end up picking it up in one way or another in order to stay competitive, get a proper salary for food housing and health yknow?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    I don't know what kind of work you're in, but if you're "required" to use LLMs then your employer should be paying for it.

    If you mean that "everyone will have to use LLMs to be competitive" then that is a false dichotomy.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Cost aside, what worries me is your every thought (or an approximation) will end up written down forever in some database tied to your identity. I don't mean absolutely every single human being on the planet earth will use AI to be competitive, but I do think it will be to such a high degree that it will feel like everyone is using AI to stay competitive.

    I'd say, "virtually everyone". For some time I'm sure you can keep up, but over time, let's say 10 years for example, I do believe people who never use LLMs will be on a way worse competitive position than the people who use AI. Prob way earlier than 10 years tbh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    So far all the people I've had to deal with using I AI keep coming to me to fix their shit because 20+ years of experience doesn't need AI to get it right. Some of them were not half bad before AI but I've watched their skills completely rott away over the last couple years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Don't rely on anything you can't control. Give me local LLM or death.

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

    Just don't accept it and reject the system then. Revolutions work.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Only if its something that most people choose to do, I don't like cameras, and now there's cameras everywhere, I can reject the system as much as I want but if I want to buy the stuff I need to eat I have to go out and get recorded. Of course you can argue I could also live on a farm isolated from everyone else and grow my own food and never go into any town or city, but that's a really restrictive way to live.

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

    Depends on your definition of what "restrictive" is. If you were born in, or even lived most of your life in a city, your perspective of reality is severely warped.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 days ago

    My definition of restrictive is having limited access to the things people who don't live isolated have access to. I've lived both on a capital city an a more rural/countryside area, even on the countryside there are cameras on buses, hospitals, gov buildings, on houses, of not all houses like in the city, but if you go out anywhere even here, you will get recorded. (unless you go to a place without people, which as I said would be restrictive)

    My perspective of reality might be "warped" as you say, but does that change any argument I'm making? Or it's something you just wanted to say?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Imagine if people were paid to do these jobs instead? Pay equal to the amount spent on AI. Benefits equal to the cost of the infrastructure it takes to run these LLMs. Just a crazy thought.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (7 children)

    i’ve maintained in my personal relationships that LLMs would lead to a recession. perhaps not globally but definitely will be felt in households.

    the question you’re asking is right at a time when its relevance is the lowest. that is to say that you’re presuming there’s a future where models will control the minutiae of online services when it’s already too costly for businesses to continue its integration.

    and on the notion that your interactions will be recorded forever. humans have a sketchy track record for archiving information. most of life is mundane and no really cares what you do for the most part.

    i feel that the ai doomerism is driven partly by people who are both fearful and naive.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 days ago (6 children)

    I'm both fearful and naive, but I don't think makes me automatically wrong tho

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    didn’t say you were wrong but look at it from another way.

    the usa is leading llm development and pushing for infrastructure buildout.

    for the last few years countries who have traditionally supported the usa (china, japan, uk) have been selling off their 30 year us treasury bonds. similarly gold stockpiles have increased in the same amount of time.

    us banks have been dumping their ai debt this year to reduce their risk.

    the signs basically pointing to a potential market collapse all tied to corporate heavyweights on the nyse.

    the recession will be unavoidable and it will take the ai craze with it. when no one can afford to pay for the services the hype will fizzle out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    There's an incentive for authoritarian goverments to use AI even if citizens cant afford to use them, I mean i do feel customers will always to be able to afford AI to some capacity, prob will cost more than now if AI "collapses"

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

    what comes first, groceries or ai?

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

    If AI becomes the necessity to work, and therefore buy groceries, then AI, tho this is dubious at the moment (it would need AI to become essential for work first for this statement to be true)

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

    China already has a solution to this: train a model on the public model. The only info that releases is that you’re examining the large model.

    From that, you create open local models which work just as well for focused tasks on simpler hardware.

    You control the local models, so there’s no information leak on how they’re used.

    And you use your local models to interact with the commercial models when you have to, so no personal behavior patterns are given away.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    I think that the image you paint is quite dystopian, I do not think you are very far off though. It looks to me that our billionaires and governments in the west are intent on creating the future all the science fiction authors warned us about.

  • source