American attitudes about AI today mirror poll answers about the rise of the internet in the '90s
Technology
78
Beiträge
41
Kommentatoren
77
Aufrufe
-
That's because search engines have reached the stage of enshittification where they no longer need to be good. Instead, they want you to spend as much time there as possible.
LLMs are still being sold as "the better option" - including by the exact same search giants who intentionally ruined their own search results. And many of them are already prioritizing agreeableness over "truthfulness." And we're still in the LLM honeymoon phase, where companies are losing billions of dollars on a yearly basis and undercharging their users.
This is something I think the 'you have to use LLMs or you're falling behind' crowd are missing. Of course these companies want you to become dependent on their product, and unable to complete basic tasks without it, because then when they slap you with monthly fees and ads and tokens you won't have a choice but to pay.
Use them if they're useful, but don't out source your brain. You'll need it when the enshittification begins.
-
deleted by creator
Absolutely not true. I find more often they use lots of statistics. That's the whole facts over feelings thing.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yeah, but internet was for the people for decades.
(And it didn't really cost nature as much. Or stolen from the people so much - even by current laws LLM companies do that illegally.)"AIs" are getting their enshitification & monopolies pre-baked into their core bossiness models from the start.
Not to mention that AIs will definitely worsen inequalities all over the world (like assembly robots that replaced people but aren't owned by people, and people still need to work 8h/day for decades for some reason).
(This but AI. I'm not saying, there aren't/won't be other jobs, just pointing out how this reshapes & concentrates wealth that on the other hands allows for slave wages with no prospects for full time jobs.)
If AIs will affect the world as much as the internet (and do so with peoples data), then they should be seen as core infrastructure - and government or non-profit owned.
Monetisation of all the things is killing us.
-
Absolutely not true. I find more often they use lots of statistics. That's the whole facts over feelings thing.
deleted by creator
-
This post did not contain any content.
The invention of the Internet didn't come with realistic deepfakes, now we are in a post-truth society.
If UBI isn't implemented, I expect there will be riots all around the world, rightfully so.
-
This post did not contain any content.
this is about utilization so its basically about how much folks are accepting it in usage rather than just words.
-
deleted by creator
Then you're in a bubble. One of the most frustrating things about the right currently is they have a large network that is very good at sharing information. They have a much tighter grip of current events than anyone I've seen on the left. The left are miles behind on any current events. Whenever something is happening, I've been heading over to right wing spaces because as much as I hate it, they tend to know things much faster and in more detail then the left wing spaces.
Just look at Lemmy here. Most information is a post and then 100 comments of talking about how upset we all are and gob smacked. But there is no further insight.
When I go to right wing spaces, it is similar but i do get extra information like background details about who individuals were or what led to an event that isn't in an article. It comes with tons of bullshit but I trust I know ways to verify information enough to spot the bullshit.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ah yes 1998, the last year before Matrix.
-
Yeah, but internet was for the people for decades.
(And it didn't really cost nature as much. Or stolen from the people so much - even by current laws LLM companies do that illegally.)"AIs" are getting their enshitification & monopolies pre-baked into their core bossiness models from the start.
Not to mention that AIs will definitely worsen inequalities all over the world (like assembly robots that replaced people but aren't owned by people, and people still need to work 8h/day for decades for some reason).
(This but AI. I'm not saying, there aren't/won't be other jobs, just pointing out how this reshapes & concentrates wealth that on the other hands allows for slave wages with no prospects for full time jobs.)
If AIs will affect the world as much as the internet (and do so with peoples data), then they should be seen as core infrastructure - and government or non-profit owned.
Monetisation of all the things is killing us.
I think there is no possible world where people are without meaningful work and are happy about it. Even if they collected $10,000 a month and got to spend all of their time doing hobbies and spending time with family, it would feel pointless and hollow. Why have a family? Why raise children? Why do anything if there's no struggle, if you're not the one providing for your kids? I think if AI replaces humans in the workplace, even with UBI, humans would cease to exist shortly thereafter as our lives will have become meaningless
-
I think there is no possible world where people are without meaningful work and are happy about it. Even if they collected $10,000 a month and got to spend all of their time doing hobbies and spending time with family, it would feel pointless and hollow. Why have a family? Why raise children? Why do anything if there's no struggle, if you're not the one providing for your kids? I think if AI replaces humans in the workplace, even with UBI, humans would cease to exist shortly thereafter as our lives will have become meaningless
deleted by creator
-
deleted by creator
Yes, I think people define themselves by their roles, especially men
-
Yes, I think people define themselves by their roles, especially men
That's a sign of toxic culture, not of men wanting to be defined by what value they can bring.
-
I think there is no possible world where people are without meaningful work and are happy about it. Even if they collected $10,000 a month and got to spend all of their time doing hobbies and spending time with family, it would feel pointless and hollow. Why have a family? Why raise children? Why do anything if there's no struggle, if you're not the one providing for your kids? I think if AI replaces humans in the workplace, even with UBI, humans would cease to exist shortly thereafter as our lives will have become meaningless
I think there is no possible world where people are without meaningful work and are happy about it.
-->
Even if they collected $10,000 a month and got to spend all of their time doing hobbies and spending time with family, it would feel pointless and hollow.
What is the difference between "hobby" and "work" if not what random people decide what is better monetised?
Both is labour & value added.
In a world where everyone gets enough money people could do what they actually want. So a CEO wouldn't be "stuck" being a CEO if they don't like that job & would rather be eg a baker. In the current system bcs of a huge pay divergence you get an unhappy CEO (who ofc won't quit) and an unhappy baker that just couldn't get a more suited paying job.
But we as a society would get a lot more out of life & cultural progression if people would be happy & satisfied at what they do (job=hobby).
Empirical evidence (even USA did extensive tests in the 60s) show that given a universal income (so basically no scarcity) basically nobody just sits around watching TV all day, everyone is productive (research, art, services, etc).
Imagine only having customer support or food industry workers that truly enjoy their job & want to do it.
How many prodigies are stuck at random dead end jobs with no prospects and life options?Labour is what we all benefit from.
Work is what the employer/owner benefits from. -
Yes, I think people define themselves by their roles, especially men
Even if so - the definition of oneself is what that person gets paid for, not what that person enjoys doing (or even is just good at)?
(Especially with jobs, folk on LinkedIn will describe their job as anything but their actual everyday job, or lie/exaggerate about their job when with other people - so not even that "role" is true.)
... like, lmao, except if it's like a weird grinding kink or something.
-
That's a sign of toxic culture, not of men wanting to be defined by what value they can bring.
*monetary value
(in relation to toxic culture)(bcs value that people actuality bring to society often isn't fairly valued in terms of money or even not at all)
-
Yes, I think people define themselves by their roles, especially men
You have a very limited view of what life should, or even can be.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Nothing like comparing a technology that took more than 10 years to get "released in the wild" and had several "killer apps" built using it very early on (email, instant messaging, web pages, online games) and many companies had no idea how to get money with it, vs. a "content generator" that is run almost entirely on promises of increased productivity and profit.
-
That's a sign of toxic culture, not of men wanting to be defined by what value they can bring.
No it's biology
-
You have a very limited view of what life should, or even can be.
It's not a normative statement. I don't necessarily think it's good. I just don't think people can be happy being useless
-
Ah yes 1998, the last year before Matrix.
Huh I thought matrix was pretty new, and people used irc back then.
