Skip to content

Why so much hate toward AI?

Technology
73 46 208
  • My skepticism is because it’s kind of trash for general use. I see great promise in specialized A.I. Stuff like Deepfold or astronomy situations where the telescope data is coming in hot and it would take years for humans to go through it all.

    But I don’t think it should be in everything. Google shouldn’t be sticking LLM summaries at the top. It hallucinates so I need to check the veracity anyway. In medicine, it can help double-check but it can’t be the doctor. It’s just not there yet and might never get there. Progress has kind of stalled.

    So, I don’t “hate” any technology. I hate when people misapply it. To me, it’s (at best) beta software and should not be in production anywhere important. If you want to use it for summarizing Scooby Doo episodes, fine. But it shouldn’t be part of anything we rely on yet.

    Also, it should never be used for art. I don’t care if you need to make a logo for a company and A.I. spits out whatever. But real art is about humans expressing something. We don’t value cave paintings because they’re perfect. We value them because someone thousands of years ago made it.

    So, that’s something I hate about it. People think it can “democratize” art. Art is already democratized. I have a child’s drawing on my fridge that means more to me than anything at any museum. The beauty of some things is not that it was generated. It’s that someone cared enough to try. I’d rather a misspelled crayon card from my niece than some shit ChatGPT generated.

  • Because the goal of "AI" is to make the grand majority of us all obsolete. The billion-dollar question AI is trying to solve is "why should we continue to pay wages?".
    That is bad for everyone who isn't part of the owner class. Even if you personally benefit from using it to make yourself more productive/creative/... the data you input can and WILL eventually be used against you.

    If you only self-host and know what you're doing, this might be somewhat different, but it still won't stop the big guys from trying to swallow all the others whole.

    Reads like a rant against the industrial revolution. "The industry is only concerned about replacing workers with steam engines!"

  • Not much to win with.

    A fake bubble of broken technology that's not capable of doing what is advertised, it's environmentally destructive, its used for identification and genocide, it threatens and actually takes jobs, and concentrates money and power with the already wealthy.

    It's either broken and not capable or takes jobs.

    You can't be both useless and destroying jobs at the same time

  • My main gripes are more philosophical in nature, but should we automate away certain parts of the human experience? Should we automate art? Should we automate human connections?

    On top of these, there's also the concern of spam. AI is quick enough to flood the internet with low-effort garbage.

    The industrial revolution called, they want their argument against the use of automated looms back.

  • It's either broken and not capable or takes jobs.

    You can't be both useless and destroying jobs at the same time

    Have you never had a corporate job? A technology can be very much useless while incompetent 'managers' who believe it can do better than humans WILL buy the former to get rid of the latter, even though that's a stupid thing to do, in order to meet their yearly targets and other similar idiotic measures of division/team 'productivity'

  • Because of studies like https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.03622:

    Overall, we find that participants who had access to an AI assistant based on OpenAI's codex-davinci-002 model wrote significantly less secure code than those without access. Additionally, participants with access to an AI assistant were more likely to believe they wrote secure code than those without access to the AI assistant.

    Seems like this is a good argument for specialization. Have AI make bad but fast code, pay specialty people to improve and make it secure when needed. My 2026 Furby with no connection to the outside world doesn't need secure code, it just needs to make kids smile.

  • It's either broken and not capable or takes jobs.

    You can't be both useless and destroying jobs at the same time

    And yet AI pulls through and somehow does manage to do both

  • Seems like this is a good argument for specialization. Have AI make bad but fast code, pay specialty people to improve and make it secure when needed. My 2026 Furby with no connection to the outside world doesn't need secure code, it just needs to make kids smile.

    They're called programmers, and it's faster and less expensive all around to just have humans do it better the first time.

  • There's also the issue of people now flooding the internet with AI generated tutorials and documentation, making things even harder. I managed to botch the Linux on my Raspberry Pi so hard I couldn't fix it easily, all thanks to a crappy AI generated tutorial on adding to path that I didn't immediately spot.

    With art, it can't really be controlled enough to be useful for anything much beyond spam machine, but spammers only care about social media clout and/or ad revenue.

    and also chatbot-generated bug reports (like curl) and entire open source projects (i guess for some stupid crypto scheme)

  • It's either broken and not capable or takes jobs.

    You can't be both useless and destroying jobs at the same time

    it's not ai taking your job, it's your boss. all they need to believe is that language-shaped noise generator can make it work, doesn't matter if it does (it doesn't). then business either suffers greatly or hires people back (like klarna)

  • I''m curious about the strong negative feelings towards AI and LLMs. While I don't defend them, I see their usefulness, especially in coding. Is the backlash due to media narratives about AI replacing software engineers? Or is it the theft of training material without attribution? I want to understand why this topic evokes such emotion and why discussions often focus on negativity rather than control, safety, or advancements.

    It's a massive new disruptive technology and people are scared of what changes it will bring. AI companies are putting out tons of propaganda both claiming AI can do anything and fear mongering that AI is going to surpass and subjugate us to back up that same narrative.

    Also, there is so much focus on democratizing content creation, which is at best a very mixed bag, and little attention is given to collaborative uses (which I think is where AI shines) because it's so much harder to demonstrate, and it demands critical thinking skills and underlying knowledge.

    In short, everything AI is hyped as is a lie, and that's all most people see. When you're poking around with it, you're most likely to just ask it to do something for you: write a paper, create a picture, whatever, and the results won't impress anyone actually good at those things, and impress the fuck out of people who don't know any better.

    This simultaneously reinforces two things to two different groups: AI is utter garbage and AI is smarter than half the people you know and is going to take all the jobs.

  • But but, now idea man can vibecode. this shit destroys separation between management and codebase making it perfect antiproductivity tool

  • The industrial revolution called, they want their argument against the use of automated looms back.

    The capitalists owning the AI thanking you for fighting on their side.

  • Reads like a rant against the industrial revolution. "The industry is only concerned about replacing workers with steam engines!"

    You're probably not wrong. It's definitely along the same lines... although the repercussions of this particular one will be infinitely greater than those of the industrial revolution.

    Also, industrialization made for better products because of better manufacturing processes. I'm by no means sure we can say the same about AI. Maybe some day, but today it's just "an advanced dumbass" considering most real world scenarios.

  • They're called programmers, and it's faster and less expensive all around to just have humans do it better the first time.

    Have you talked to any programmers about this? I know several who, in the past 6 months alone, have completely changed their view on exactly how effective AI is in automating parts of their coding. Not only are they using it, they are paying to use it because it gives them a personal return on investment...but you know, you can keep using that push lawnmower, just don't complain when the kids next door run circles around you at a quarter the cost.

  • I''m curious about the strong negative feelings towards AI and LLMs. While I don't defend them, I see their usefulness, especially in coding. Is the backlash due to media narratives about AI replacing software engineers? Or is it the theft of training material without attribution? I want to understand why this topic evokes such emotion and why discussions often focus on negativity rather than control, safety, or advancements.

    Its not particularly accurate and then there's the privacy concerns

  • I''m curious about the strong negative feelings towards AI and LLMs. While I don't defend them, I see their usefulness, especially in coding. Is the backlash due to media narratives about AI replacing software engineers? Or is it the theft of training material without attribution? I want to understand why this topic evokes such emotion and why discussions often focus on negativity rather than control, safety, or advancements.

    • Useless fake spam content.
    • Posting AI slop ruins the "social" part of social media. You're not reading real human thoughts anymore, just statistically plausible words.
    • Same with machine-generated "art". What's the point?
    • AI companies are leeches; they steal work for the purpose of undercutting the original creators with derivative content.
    • Vibe coders produce utter garbage that nobody, especially not themselves understands, and somehow are smug about it.
    • A lot of AI stuff is a useless waste of resources.

    Most of the hate is justified IMO, but a couple weeks ago I died on the hill arguing that an LLM can be useful as a code documentation search engine. Once the train started, even a reply that thought software libraries contain books got upvotes.

  • It's either broken and not capable or takes jobs.

    You can't be both useless and destroying jobs at the same time

    It can absolutely be both. Expensive competent people are replaced with inexpensive morons all the time.

    • Useless fake spam content.
    • Posting AI slop ruins the "social" part of social media. You're not reading real human thoughts anymore, just statistically plausible words.
    • Same with machine-generated "art". What's the point?
    • AI companies are leeches; they steal work for the purpose of undercutting the original creators with derivative content.
    • Vibe coders produce utter garbage that nobody, especially not themselves understands, and somehow are smug about it.
    • A lot of AI stuff is a useless waste of resources.

    Most of the hate is justified IMO, but a couple weeks ago I died on the hill arguing that an LLM can be useful as a code documentation search engine. Once the train started, even a reply that thought software libraries contain books got upvotes.

    Not to mention the environmental cost is literally astronomical. I would be very interested if AI code is functional x times out of 10 because it's success statistic for every other type of generation is much lower.

  • The capitalists owning the AI thanking you for fighting on their side.

    Lots of assumptions there. In case you actually care, I don't think any one company should be allowed to own the base system that allows AI to function, especially if it's trained off of public content or content owned by other groups, but that's kind of immaterial here. It seems insane to villainize a technology because of who might make money off of it. These are two separate arguments (and frankly, they historically have the opposite benefactors from what you would expect).

    Prior to the industrial revolution, weaving was done by hand, making all cloth expensive or the result of sweatshops (and it was still comparatively expensive as opposed to today). Case in point, you can find many pieces of historical worker clothing that was specifically made using every piece of a rectangular piece of fabric because you did not want to waste any little bit (today it's common for people to throw any scraps away because they don't like the section of pattern).

    With the advent of automated looms several things happened:

    • the skilled workers who could operate the looms quickly were put out of a job because the machine could do things much faster, although it required a few specialized operators to set up and repair the equipment.
    • the owners of the fabric mills that couldn't afford to upgrade either died out or specialized in fabrics that could not be made by the machines (which set up an arms race of sorts where the machine builders kept improving things)
    • the quality of fabric went down: when it was previously possible to have different structures of fabric with just a simple order to the worker, it took a while for machines to do something other than a simple weave (actually it took the work of Ada Lovelace, and see above mentioned arms race), and looms even today require a different range of threads than what can be hand woven, but...
    • the cost went down so much that the accessibility went through the roof. Suddenly the average pauper COULD afford to clothe their entire family with a weeks worth of clothes. New industries cropped up. Health and economic mobility soared.

    This is a huge oversimplification, but history is well known to repeat itself due to human nature. Follow the bullets above with today's arguments against AI and you will see an often ignored end result: humanity can grow to have more time and resources to improve the health and wellness of our population IF we use the tools. You can choose to complain that the contract worker isn't going to get paid his equivalent of $5/hr for spending 2 weeks arguing back and forth about a dog logo for a new pet store, but I am going to celebrate the person who realizes they can automate a system to find new business filings and approach every new business in their area with a package of 20 logos each that were AI generated using unique prompts from their experience in logo design all while reducing their workload and making more money.

  • 31 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    modernrisk@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    Which group? Israel government or US government?
  • 803 Stimmen
    109 Beiträge
    137 Aufrufe
    the_decryptor@aussie.zoneT
    PNG gets you the best compatibility and features, at the expense of file size. But I probably wouldn't use it for uploading photographs to the web of course.
  • 29 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    Z
    GOP = Group of Pedophiles
  • Uber, Lyft oppose some bills that aim to prevent assaults during rides

    Technology technology
    12
    94 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    46 Aufrufe
    F
    California is not Colorado nor is it federal No shit, did you even read my comment? Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate. People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No. Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”. Here’s just one little but relevant section: Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company's digital network, the person shall: Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission's rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company. A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver. A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: (c) (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.; An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.; An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted. A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver. Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual. An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver: More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver; or A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years. So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 583 Stimmen
    57 Beiträge
    164 Aufrufe
    arararagi@ani.socialA
    Because artists are still there.
  • 386 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    C
    Melon Usk doomed their FSD efforts from the start with his dunning-kruger-brain take of "humans drive just using their eyes, so cars shouldn't need any sensors besides cameras." Considering how many excellent engineers there are (or were, at least) at his companies, it's kind of fascinating how "stupid at the top" is just as bad, if not worse, than "stupid all the way down."
  • Someone left this review on my free Reddit client rdx for Reddit

    Technology technology
    2
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    F
    I’m going to give you a five star review to balance it.