top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 108 points 1 year ago (13 children)

The worst is in the workplace. When people routinely tell me they looked something up with AI, I now have to assume that I can't trust what they say anylonger because there is a high chance they are just repeating some AI halucination. It is really a sad state of affairs.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago*

    I am way less hostile to Genai (as a tech) than most and even I've grown to hate this scenario. I am a subject matter expert on some things and I've still had people trying to waste my time to prove their AI hallucinations wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -19 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Do you also check if they listen to Joe Rogan? Fox news? Nobody can be trusted. AI isn't the problem, it's that it was trained on human data -- of which people are an unreliable source of information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    AI also just makes things up. Like how RFKJr's "Make America Healthy Again" report cites studies that don't exist and never have, or literally a million other examples. You're not wrong about Fox news and how corporate and Russian backed media distorts the truth and pushes false narratives, and you're not wrong that AI isn't the problem, but it is certainly a problem and a big one at that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    AI also just makes things up. Like how RFKJr's "Make America Healthy Again" report cites studies that don't exist and never have, or literally a million other examples.

    SO DO PEOPLE.

    Tell me one of the things that AI does, that people themselves don't also commonly do each and every day?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Real researchers make up studies to cite in their reports? Real lawyers and judges cite fake cases as precedents in legal preceding? Real doctors base treatment plans on white papers they completely fabricated in their heads? Yeah I don't think so, buddy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    I think they’re saying that the kind of people who take LLM generated content as fact are the kind of people who don’t know how to look up information in the first place. Blaming the LLM for it is like blaming a search engine for showing bad results.

    Of course LLMs make stuff up, they are machines that make stuff up.

    Sort of an aside, but doctors, lawyers, judges and researchers make shit up all the time. A professional designation doesn't make someone infallible or even smart. People should question everything they read, regardless of the source.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    To take an older example there are smaller image recognition models that were trained on correct data to differentiate between dogs and blueberry muffin but obviously still made mistakes on the test data set.

    AI does not become perfect if its data is.

    Humans do make mistakes, make stuff up, and spread false information. However they generally make considerably less stuff up than AI currently does (unless told to).

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

    AI does not become perfect if its data is.

    It does become more precise the larger the model is though. At least, that was the low-hanging fruit during this boom. I highly doubt you'd get a modern model to fail on a test such as this today.

    Just as an example, nobody is typing "Blueberry Muffin" into a stable diffusor and getting a photo of a dog.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Joe Rogan doesn't tell them false domain kowledge 🤷

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

    It's important to remember that there's a lot of money being put into A.I. and therefore a lot of propaganda about it.
    This happened with a lot of shitty new tech, and A.I. is one of the biggest examples of this I've known about.
    All I can write is that, if you know what kind of tech you want and it's satisfactory, just stick to that. That's what I do.
    Don't let ads get to you.

    First post on a lemmy server, by the way. Hello!

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There was a quote about how Silicon Valley isn't a fortune teller betting on the future. It's a group of rich assholes that have decided what the future would look like and are pushing technology that will make that future a reality.

    Welcome to Lemmy!

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

    Welcome in! Hope you're finding Lemmy in a positive way. It's like Reddit, but you have a lot more control over what you can block and where you can make a "home" (aka home instance).

    Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about anything

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 67 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    My boss had GPT make this informational poster thing for work. Its supposed to explain stuff to customers and is rampant with spelling errors and garbled text. I pointed it out to the boss and she said it was good enough for people to read. My eye twitches every time I see it.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago

    There's a monster in the forest, and it speaks with a thousand voices. It will answer any question, and offer insight to any idea. It knows no right or wrong. It knows not truth from lie, but speaks them both the same. It offers its services freely, many find great value. But those who know the forest well will tell you that freely offered does not mean free of cost. For now the monster speaks with a thousand and one voices, and when you see the monster it wears your face.

  • source
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I'm mostly annoyed that I have to keep explaining to people that 95% of what they hear about AI is marketing. In the years since we bet the whole US economy on AI and were told it's absolutely the future of all things, it's yet to produce a really great work of fiction (as far as we know), a groundbreaking piece of software of it's own production or design, or a blockbuster product that I'm aware of.

    We're betting our whole future on a concept of a product that has yet to reliably profit any of its users or the public as a whole.

    I've made several good faith efforts at getting it to produce something valuable or helpful to me. I've done the legwork on making sure I know how to ask it for what I want, and how I can better communicate with it.

    But AI "art" requires an actual artist to clean it up. AI fiction requires a writer to steer it or fix it. AI non-fiction requires a fact cheker. AI code requires a coder. At what point does the public catch on that the emperor has no clothes?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 29 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    it's yet to produce a really great work of fiction (as far as we know), a groundbreaking piece of software of it's own production or design, or a blockbuster product

    Or a profit. Or hell even one of those things that didn’t suck! It’s critically flawed and has been defying gravity on the coke-fueled dreams of silicon VC this whole time.

    And still. One of next year’s fiscal goals is “AI”. That’s all. Just “AI”.

    It’s a goal. Somehow. It’s utter insanity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    What if the point of AI is to have it create a personal model for each of us, using the vast amounts of our data they have access to, in order to manipulate us into buying and doing whatever the people who own it want but they can't just come out and say that?

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

    I'm sure that's at least part of the idea but I'm yet to see any evidence that it won't also be dog shit at that. It doesn't have the context window or foresight to conceive of a decent plot twist in a piece of fiction despite having access to every piece of fiction ever written. I'm not buying that it would be able to build a psychological model and contextualize 40 plus years of lived experience in a way that could get me to buy a $20 Dubai chocolate bar or drive a Chevy.

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

    Im pretty sure I said "the point of it and not that it was 100% ready to go now.

    Also, no one thinks advertising works on them. So, I'm sure you don't believe it 👍

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 81 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I feel the same way. I was talking with my mom about AI the other day and she was still on the "it's not good that AI is trained on stolen images, how it's making people lazy and taking jobs away from ppl" which is good, but I had to explain to her how much one AI prompt costs in energy and resources, how many people just mindlessly make hundreds of prompts a day for largely stupid shit they don't need and how AI hallucinates, is actively used by bad actors to spread mis- and disinformation and how it is literally being implemented into search engines everywhere so even if you want to avoid it as a normal person, you may still end up participating in AI prompting every single fucking time you search for anything on Google. She was horrified.

    There definitely are some net positives to AI, but currently the negatives outweigh the positives and most people are not using AI responsibly at all. I have little to no respect for people who use AI to make memes or who use it for stupid everyday shit that they could have figured out themselves.

    The most dystopian shit I have seen recently was when my boyfriend and I went to watch Weapons in cinema and we got an ad for an AI assistent. The ad is basically this braindead bimbo at a laundry mat deciding to use AI to tell her how to wash her clothes instead of looking at the fucking flips on her clothes and putting two and two together. She literally takes a picture of the flip and has the AI assistent tell her how to do it and then going "thank you so much, I could have never done this without you".

    I fucking laughed in the cinema. Laughed and turned to my boyfriend and said: this is so fucking dystopian, dude.

    I feel insane for seeing so many people just mindlessly walking down this path of utter retardation. Even when you tell them how disastrous it is for the planet, it doesn't compute in their heads because it is not only convenient to have a machine think for you. It's also addictive.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    You are not correct about the energy use of prompts. They are not very energy intensive at all. Training the AI, however, is breaking the power grid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Sam Altman, or whatever fuck his name is, asked users to stop saying please and thank you to chatgpt because it was costing the company millions. Please and thank you are the less power hungry questions chatgpt gets. And its costing chatgpt millions. Probably 10s of millions of dollars if the CEO made a public comment about it.

    You're right training is hella power hungry, but even using gen ai has heavy power costs

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Maybe not an individual prompt, but with how many prompts are made for stupid stuff every day, it will stack up to quite a lot of CO2 in the long run.

    Not denying the training of AI is demanding way more energy, but that doesn't really matter as both the action of manufacturing, training and millions of people using AI amounts to the same bleak picture long term.

    Considering how the discussion about environmental protection has only just started to be taken seriously and here they come and dump this newest bomb on humanity, it is absolutely devastating that AI has been allowed to run rampant everywhere.

    According to this article, 500.000 AI prompts amounts to the same CO2 outlet as a

    round-trip flight from London to New York.

    I don't know how many times a day 500.000 AI prompts are reached, but I'm sure it is more than twice or even thrice. As time moves on it will be much more than that. It will probably outdo the number of actual flights between London and New York in a day. Every day. It will probably also catch up to whatever energy cost it took to train the AI in the first place and surpass it.

    Because you know. People need their memes and fake movies and AI therapist chats and meal suggestions and history lessons and a couple of iterations on that book report they can't be fucked to write. One person can easily end up prompting hundreds of times in a day without even thinking about it. And if everybody starts using AI to think for them at work and at home, it'll end up being many, many, many flights back and forth between London and New York every day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • I had the discussion regarding generated CO2 a while ago here, and with the numbers my discussion partner gave me, the calculation said that the yearly usage of ChatGPT is appr. 0.0017% of our CO2 reduction during the covid lockdowns - chatbots are not what is kiling the climate. What IS killing the climate has not changed since the green movement started: cars, planes, construction (mainly concrete production) and meat.

    The exact energy costs are not published, but 3Wh / request for ChatGPT-4 is the upper limit from what we know (and thats in line with the appr. power consumption on my graphics card when running an LLM). Since Google uses it for every search, they will probably have optimized for their use case, and some sources cite 0.3Wh/request for chatbots - it depends on what model you use. The training is a one-time cost, and for ChatGPT-4 it raises the maximum cost/request to 4Wh. That's nothing. The combined worldwide energy usage of ChatGPT is equivalent to about 20k American households. This is for one of the most downloaded apps on iPhone and Android - setting this in comparison with the massive usage makes clear that saving here is not effective for anyone interested in reducing climate impact, or you have to start scolding everyone who runs their microwave 10 seconds too long.

    Even compared to other online activities that use data centers ChatGPT's power usage is small change. If you use ChatGPT instead of watching Netflix you actually safe energy!

    Water is about the same, although the positioning of data centers in the US sucks. The used water doesn't disappear tho - it's mostly returned to the rivers or is evaporated. The water usage in the US is 58,000,000,000,000 gallons (220 Trillion Liters) of water per year. A ChatGPT request uses between 10-25ml of water for cooling. A Hamburger uses about 600 galleons of water. 2 Trillion Liters are lost due to aging infrastructure. If you want to reduce water usage, go vegan or fix water pipes.

    Read up here!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I have a hard time believing that article’s guesstimate since Google (who actually runs these data centers and doesn’t have to guess) just published a report stating that the median prompt uses about a quarter of a watt-hour, or the equivalent of running a microwave oven for one second. You’re absolutely right that flights use an unconscionable amount of energy. Perhaps your advocacy time would be much better spent fighting against that.

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

    And Google would never lie about how much energy a prompt costs, right?

    Especially not since they have an invested interest in having people use their AI products, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    ... They're kind of governed by law about what things they're allowed to tell their stockholders.

    And before you try to say otherwise, yes, laws that protect the ownership class are still being enforced.

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

    I'm pretty sure it's a product of scale, but also, GPT5 is markedly worse. I heard estimates of 40 watt hours for a single medium length response. Napkin math says my motorcycle can travel about kilometer per single medium length response of GPT5. Now multiply that by how many people are using AI (anyone going online these days), now multiply that by how many times a day each user causes a prompt. Now multiply that by 365 and we have how much power they're using in a year.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Not just you. Ai is making people dumber. I am frequently correcting the mistakes of my colleagues that use.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My attitude to all of this is I've been told by management to use it so I will. If it makes mistakes it's not my fault and now I'm free to watch old Stargate episodes. We're not doing rocket surgery or anything so who cares.

    At some point they'll realise that the AI is not producing decent output and then they'll shut up about it. Much easier they come to that realisation themselves than me argue with them about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Luckily no one is pushing me to use Ai in any form at this time.

    For folks in your position, I fear that they will first go through a round of layoffs to get rid of the people who are clearly using it "wrong" because Top Management can't have made a mistake before they pivot and drop it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Yeah that is a risk, then again if they're forcing their employees to use AI they're probably not far off firing everyone anyway so I don't see that it makes a huge amount of difference for my position.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    When i was a kid and firat realized i was maybe a genius, it was terrifying. That there weren't always gonna just be people smarter than me who could fix it.

    Seeing them get dumber is like some horror movie shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Everytime someone talks up AI, I point out that you need to be a subject matter expert in the topic to trust it because it frequently produces really, really convincing summaries that are complete and utter bullshit.

    And people agree with me implicitly and tell me they've seen the same. But then don't hesitate to turn to AI on subjects they aren't experts in for "quick answers". These are not stupid people either. I just don't understand.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Uses for this current wave of AI: converting machine language to human language. Converting human language to machine language. Sentiment analysis. Summarizing text.

    People have way over invested in one of the least functional parts of what it can do because it's the part that looks the most "magic" if you don't know what it's doing.

    The most helpful and least used way of using them is to identify what information the user is looking for and then to point them to resources they can use to find out for themselves, maybe with a description of which resource might be best depending on what part of the question they're answering.
    It's easy to be wrong when you're answering a question, and a lot harder when you hand someone a book and say you think the answer is in chapter four.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Because the alternative for me is googling the question with "reddit" added at the end half of the time. I still do that alot. For more complicated or serious problems/questions, I've set it to only use search function and navigate scientific sites like ncbi and pubmed while utilizing deep think. It then gives me the sources, I randomly tend to cross-check the relevant information, but so far I personally haven't noticed any errors. You gotta realize how much time this saves.

    When it comes to data privacy, I honestly don't see the potential dangers in the data I submit to OpenAI, but this is of course different to everyone else. I don't submit any personal info or talk about my life. It's a tool.

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

    Simply by the questions you ask, the way you ask them, they are able to infer a lot of information. Just because you're not giving them the raw data about you doesn't mean they are not able to get at least some of it. They've gotten pretty good at that.

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

    I really don't have any counter-arguments as you have a good point, I tend to turn a blind eye to that uncomfortable fact. It's worth it, I guess? Realistically, I'm having a hard time thinking of worst-case scenarious

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

    If it saves time but you still have to double check its answers, does it really save time? At least many reddit comments call out their own uncertainty or link to better resources, I can't trust a single thing AI outputs so I just ignore it as much as possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    you asked for thoughts about your character backstory and i put it into chat gpt for ideas

    If I want ideas from ChatGPT, I could just ask it myself. Usually, if I'm reaching out to ask people's opinions, I want, you know, their opinions. I don't even care if I hear nothing back from them for ages, I just want their input.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [+] 34 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Meanwhile every company finds out the week after they lay off everyone that the billions they poured into their shitty "AI" to replace them might as well have been put in bags and set on fire

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    No, it's not just you or unsat-and-strange. You're pro-human.

    Trying something new when it first comes out or when you first get access to it is novelty. What we've moved to now is mass adoption. And that's a problem.

    These LLMs are automation of mass theft with a good enough regurgitation of the stolen data. This is unethical for the vast majority of business applications. And good enough is insufficient in most cases, like software.

    I had a lot of fun playing around with AI when it first came out. And people figured out how to do prompts I cant seem to replicate. I don't begrudge people from trying a new thing.

    But if we aren't going to regulate AI or teach people how to avoid AI induced psychosis then even in applications were it could be useful it's a danger to anyone who uses it. Not to mention how wasteful its water and energy usage is.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Regulate? This is what lead AI companies are pushing for, they would pass the bureaucracy but not the competitors.

    The shit just needs to be forced to opensource. If you steal the content from entire world to build a thinking machine - give back to the world.

    This would also crash the bubble and would slow down any of the most unethical for-profits.

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

    Regulate? This is what lead AI companies are pushing for, they would pass the bureaucracy but not the competitors.

    I was referring to this in my comment:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/big-beautiful-bill-ai-moratorium-ted-cruz-pass-vote-rcna215111

    Congress decided to not go through with the AI-law moratorium. Instead they opted to do nothing, which is what AI companies would prefer states would do. Not to mention the pro-AI argument appeals to the judgement of Putin, notorious for being surrounded by yes-men and his own state propaganda. And the genocide of Ukrainians in pursuit of the conquest of Europe.

    “There’s growing recognition that the current patchwork approach to regulating AI isn’t working and will continue to worsen if we stay on this path,” OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, Chris Lehane, wrote on LinkedIn. “While not someone I’d typically quote, Vladimir Putin has said that whoever prevails will determine the direction of the world going forward.”

    The shit just needs to be forced to opensource. If you steal the content from entire world to build a thinking machine - give back to the world.

    The problem is unlike Robin Hood, AI stole from the people and gave to the rich. The intellectual property of artists and writers were stolen and the only way to give it back is to compensate them, which is currently unlikely to happen. Letting everyone see how the theft machine works under the hood doesn't provide compensation for the usage of that intellectual property.

    This would also crash the bubble and would slow down any of the most unethical for-profits.

    Not really. It would let more people get it on it. And most tech companies are already in on it. This wouldn't impose any costs on AI development. At this point the speculation is primarily on what comes next. If open source would burst the bubble it would have happened when DeepSeek was released. We're still talking about the bubble bursting in the future so that clearly didn't happen.

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

    Forced opensourcing would totally destroy the profits, cause you spend money on research and then you opensource, so anyone can just grab your model and don't pay you a cent. Where would the profits come from?

    IP of writers

    I mean yes, and? AI is still shitty at creative writing. Unlike with images, it's not like people oneshot a decent book.

    give it to the rich

    We should push to make high-vram devices accessible. This is literally about means of production - we should fight for equal access. Regulation is the reverse of that, give those megacorps the unique ability to run it because others are too stupid to control it.

    OpenAI

    They were the most notorious proponents of the regulations. Lots of talks with openai devs where they just doomsay about the dangers of AGI, and how it must be top secret controlled by govs.

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

    Forced opensourcing would totally destroy the profits, cause you spend money on research and then you opensource, so anyone can just grab your model and don’t pay you a cent.

    DeepSeek was released

    The profits were not destroyed.

    Where would the profits come from?

    At this point the speculation is primarily on what comes next.

    People are betting on what they think LLMs will be able to do in the future, not what they do now.

    I mean yes, and?

    It's theft. They stole the work of writers and all sorts of content creators. That's the wrong that needs to be righted. Not how to reproduce the crime. The only way to right intellectual property theft is to pay the owner of that intellectual property the money they would have gotten if they had willingly leased it out as part of a deal. Corporations, like Nintendo, Disney, and Hasbro, hound people who do anything unapproved with their intellectual property. The idea that we're yes anding the intellectual property of all humanity is laughable in a discussion supposedly about ethics.

    We should push to make high-vram devices accessible.

    That's a whole other topic. But what we should fight for now is worker owned corporations. While that is an excellent goal, it isn't helping to undue the theft that was done on its own. It's only allowing more people to profit off that theft. We should also compensate the people who were stolen from if we care about ethics. Also, compensating writers and artists seems like a good reason to take all the money away from the billionaires.

    Lots of talks with openai devs where they just doomsay about the dangers of AGI, and how it must be top secret controlled by govs.

    OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, Chris Lehane, wrote on LinkedIn

    Looks like the devs aren't in control of the C-Suite. Whoops, all avoidable capitalist driven apocalypses.

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

    it's theft

    So is all the papers, all the conversations in the internet, all the code etc. So what? Nobody will stop the AI train. You would need Butlerian Jihad type of event to make it happen. In case of any won class action, the repayments would be so laughable nobody would even apply.

    Deepseek

    Deepseek didn't opensource any proprietary AIs corporations do. I'm talking about forcing OpenAI to opensource all of their AI type of event, or close the company if they don't comply.

    betting on the future

    Ok, new AI model drops, it's opensource, I download it and run on my rack. Where profits?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    So what?

    So appealing to ethics was bullshit got it. You just wanted the automated theft tool.

    Deepseek

    It kept some things hidden but it was the most open source LLM we got.

    Ok, new AI model drops, it’s opensource, I download it and run on my rack. Where profits?

    The next new AI model that can do the next new thing. The entire economy is based on speculative investments. If you can't improve on the AI model on your machine you're not getting any investor money. edit: typos

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    the bubble has burst or, rather, currently is in the process of bursting.

    My job involves working directly with AI, LLM's, and companies that have leveraged their use. It didn't work. And I'd say the majority of my clients are now scrambling to recover or to simply make it out of the other end alive. Soon there's going to be nothing left to regulate.

    GPT5 was a failure. Rumors I've been hearing is that Anthropics new model will be a failure much like GPT5. The house of cards is falling as we speak. This won't be the complete Death of AI but this is just like the dot com bubble. It was bound to happen. The models have nothing left to eat and they're getting desperate to find new sources. For a good while they've been quite literally eating each others feces. They're now starting on Git Repos of all things to consume. Codeberg can tell you all about that from this past week. This is why I'm telling people to consider setting up private git instances and lock that crap down. if you're on Github get your shit off there ASAP because Microsoft is beginning to feast on your repos.

    But essentially the AI is starving. Companies have discovered that vibe coding and leveraging AI to build from end to end didn't work. Nothing produced scales, its all full of exploits or in most cases has zero security measures what so ever. They all sunk money into something that has yet to pay out. Just go on linkedin and see all the tech bros desperately trying to save their own asses right now.

    the bubble is bursting.

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

    The folks I know at both OpenAI and Anthropic don’t share your belief.

    Also, anecdotally, I’m only seeing more and more push for LLM use at work.

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

    that's interesting in all honesty and I don't doubt you. all I know is my bank account has been getting bigger within the past few months due to new work from clients looking to fix their AI problems.

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

    I think you’re onto something where a lot of this AI mess is going to have to be fixed by actual engineers. If folks blindly copied from stackoverflow without any understanding, they’re gonna have a bad time and that seems equivalent to what we’re seeing here.

    I think the AI hate is overblown and I tend to treat it more like a search engine than something that actually does my work for me. With how bad Google has gotten, some of these models have been a blessing.

    My hope is that the models remain useful, but the bubble of treating them like a competent engineer bursts.

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

    Agreed. I'm with you it should be treated as a basic tool not something that is used to actually create things which, again in my current line of work, is what many places have done. It's a fantastic rubber duck. I use it myself for that purpose or even for tasks that I can't be bothered with like creating README markdowns or commit messages or even setting up flakes and nix shells and stuff like that, creating base project structures so YOU can do the actual work and don't have to waste time setting things up.

    The hate can be overblown but I can see where it's coming from purely because many companies have not utilized it as a tool but instead thought of it as a replacement for an individual.

  • source
  • parent
  • At the risk of sounding like a tangent, LLMs' survival doesn't solely depend on consumer/business confidence. In the US, we are living in a fascist dictatorship. Fascism and fascists are inherently irrational. Trump, a fascist, wants to bring back coal despite the market natural phasing coal out.

    The fascists want LLMs because they hate art and all things creative. So the fascists may very well choose to have the federal government invest in LLM companies. Like how they bought 10% of Intel's stock or how they want to build coal powered freedom cities.

    So even if there are no business applications for LLM technology our fascist dictatorship may still try to impose LLM technology on all of us. Purely out of hate for us, art and life itself. edit: looks like I commented this under my comment the first time

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 30 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    On the contrary: society has repeatedly rejected a lot of ideas that industries have come up with.

    HD DVD, 3D TV, Crypto Currency, NFT's, Laser Discs, 8-track tapes, UMD's. A decade ago everyone was hyping up how VR would be the future of gaming, yet it's still a niche novelty today.

    The difference with AI is that I don't think I've ever seen a supply side push this strong before. I'm not seeing a whole lot of demand for it from individual people. It's "oh this is a neat little feature I can use" not "this technology is going to change my life" the way that the laundry machine, the personal motor vehicle, the telephone, or the internet did. I could be wrong but I think that as long as we can survive the bubble bursting, we will come out on the other side with LLM's being a blip on the radar. And one consequence will be that if anyone makes a real AI they will need to call it something else for marketing purposes because "AI" will be ruined.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    AI's biggest business is (if not already, it will be) surveillance systems sold to authoritarian governments worldwide. Israel is using it in Gaza. It's both used internally and exported as a product by China. Not just cameras on street corners doing facial recognition, but monitoring the websites you visit, the things you buy, the people you talk to. AI will be used on large datasets like these to label people as dissidents, to disempower them financially, and to isolate them socially. And if the AI hallucinates in this endeavor, that's fine. Better to imprison 10 innocent men than to let 1 rebel go free.

    In the meantime, AI is being laundered to the individual consumer as a harmless if ineffective toy. "Make me a portrait, give me some advice, summarize a meeting," all things it can do if you accept some amount of errors. But given this domain of problems it solves, the average person would never expect that anyone would use it to identify the first people to pack into train cars.

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

    VR was and is also still a very inaccessible tool for most people. It costs a lot of money and time to even get to the point where you're getting the intended VR experience and that is what it mostly boils down to: an experience. It isn't convenient or useful and people can't afford it. And even though there are many gamers out there, most people aren't gamers and don't care about mounting a VR headset on their cranium and getting seasick for a few minutes.

    AI is not only accessible and convenient, it is also useful to the everyday person, if the AI doesn't hallucinate like hell, that is. It has the potential to optimize workloads in jobs with a lot of paperwork, calculations and so on.

    I completely agree with you that AI is being pushed very aggressively in ways we haven't seen before and that is because the tech people and their investors poured a lot of money into developing these things. They need it to be a success so they can earn their money back and they will be successful eventually because everybody with money and power has a huge interest in this tool becoming a part of everyday life. It can be used to control the masses in ways we cannot even imagine yet and it can earn the creators and investors a lot of money.

    They are already making AI computers. According to some it will entirely replace the types of computers we are used to today. From what I can understand, it will be preferable to the open AI setups we have currently that are burning our planet to a crisp with the amount of data centers that need to keep them active. Supposedly the AI computer will have it be a local thing on the laptop and it will therefore demand less resources, but I'm so fucking skeptic about all this shit that I'm waiting to see how much power a computer with an AI operating system will need to swallow in energy. I'm too tech-ignorant to understand the ins and outs of what this and that means, but we are definitely going to have to accept that AI is here to stay and the current setup with open AIs and forced LLM's in every search engine is a massive environmental nightmare. It probably won't stop or change a fucking lick because people don't give a fuck as long as they are comfortable and the companies are getting people to use their trash tech just like they wanted so they won't stop it either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago

    AI is not only accessible and convenient, it is also useful to the everyday person, if the AI doesn't hallucinate like hell, that is.

    This is literally the pitch burning hundreds of billions of dollars into ash. It’s insane.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    HDDVDs weren’t rejected by the masses they were a casualty in Sony’s vendetta against the loss of Beta and DAT. Both of which were rejected by industry not consumers (though both were later embraced by industry and Betas even outlasted VHSs). They would have won out for the same reasons that Sony lost the previous format wars (insistence on licensing fees) except this time Sony bought out Columbia and had a whole library of video and a studio to make new movies to exclusively release on their format. Essentially the supply side pushing something until consumers accepted it, though to your point not quite as bad as AI is right now.

    8-Tracks and laserdiscs were just replaced by better formats (Compact Cassette and Video CD/DVD respectively). Each of them were also replacements for previous formats like Reel to Reel and CEDs.

    UMDs only don’t exist still because flash media got better and because Sony opted to use a cheaper scratch resistant coating instead of a built in case for later formats (like Blu-ray). Also, UMDs themselves were a replacement for or at least inspired by an earlier format called MiniDisc.

    Capitalism’s biggest feat has been convincing people that everything is the next big thing and nothing that has come before is similar when just about everything is just a rinse and repeat, even LLMs… remember when Watson beat Ken Jennings?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    People literally believe what a TV anchor or online podcaster tell them with zero doubt. I fear your hopes are misplaced.

    I'm still rooting for humanity, maybe we get get lucky with the right people seizing power and turn it around to the 1% of good timelines, but I don't exactly feel so good right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah. But then being a vertibrate is always lonely and kinda rough.

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

    always lonely

    I don't know, some rodents seem to make it work. Naked mole rats, beavers, prairie dogs... (I wouldn't include herd animals, though; sure, they're always surrounded by others, but there's no sense of community, it's always everyone for themselves, and screw whoever's slowest... perfect example of being alone in a multitude)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›