Only corporate executives benefit from AI.

Everyone else is harmed, both directly and indirectly, and it makes the customer experience far worse because workers are replaced by chatbots that are incapable of understanding.

From what I've seen, the only people that have a positive view of AI are those who see themselves as the master of others. The trans, nonbinary, & disabled people in this study are very unlikely to fit that mold.

Sorry cis male here I find AI negatively. This article is bullshit trying to separate us. We should all be appalled by AI.

Trans lady here, appalled by AI! A lot of the middle management I work with are eager for it, and since I work in M365 administration, my boss keeps compelling me to flip the CoPilot switch to “on” for people.

I hate it.

Human being checking in here, I am appalled by the current usage of AI.

This study is bullshit.

I'm none of those things and so-called AI is utter shit.

The survey concludes that transgender, non-binary and disabled people tend to view AI more negatively than others. Nothing about this statistical result implies that there aren't plenty of people in other groups, like you, who view AI negatively. It makes a claim about statistical trends.

If you read a report on statistical trends and repond "That's bullshit! It doesn't describe me!" it suggests you're missing the point of surveys and statistics. The survey is quite compatible with many non-disabled cis men disliking AI a lot.

Why is a statistical survey bullshit because of your personal view on the matter? Where does the survey imply that transgender, nonbinary and disabled people are the only ones who dislike AI?

The graphic shows that every group has attitudes that are somewhere between completely negative and completely positive. The groups mentioned are just a bit more negative than the others.

Because it singles people out for no reason. There is absolutely no reason to do a study like this that focuses on marginalized groups. Does this study make these marginalized groups lives better somehow by putting this information out there? Not a chance.

Research for the sake of doing research is assinine, and its rampant in academia. We have a publish or perish attitude in academia that is so pervasive its sickening...ask me how I know that (my partner is a professor)

And we basically all but force people to write papers and try to come up with novelty to justify their existence as a professor.

AI is a scourge on this earth in how we use it today. We didnt need a study to tell us that, much less to single out a few groups of people, who frankly dont need to be singled out anymore than they already have been by the Trump administration.

The whole thing is done is bad faith to make a correlation that isn't there. I just conducted a study that says people are always cats. My study doesn't show any actual correlation but I think I once heard that a cat man exists so there is potential for study.

I mean, would you not want to do this specifically to see its effects on marginalized groups? That seems like a pretty good reason to me.

That's interesting. I feel like a lone voice in my university, trying to explain to people that using LLMs to do research tasks isn't a good idea for several reasons, but I'd never imagine that being disabled would put me into a group more likely to think like that. If I had to guess, I'd suggest that there's possibly a strong network effect being abused in our social environment to make people get into the AI hype, and we, the ones who live less connected to the "standard" social norms, tend to become less vulnerable to it.

God, the number of people here who don't know what "more likely" means is insane. Just because you aren't trans, enby or disabled doesn't mean the study is bullshit because you hate AI. It means that if you walk up to a random person and ask them about AI, they're more likely to hate it if they exist in one of those groups.

Secondly, studies like this have value because they can clue people into issues that a community is having. If everyone is neutral about a thing, except for disabled people (who hate it), then maybe that means that the thing is having a disproportionately negative impact on disabled people. Studies like this are not unlike saying "hey, there's smoke over there, there might be a fire."

It does feel a bit like the magazine is gunning for the "Don't like AI? What are you, queer?" angle.

Admittedly, I didnt read the article. I think the research is actually beneficial after reading the article, and its exactly the kind of research I think should be done on AI.

Spoke prematurely based on the headline, go figure...

The thing is, EVERYONE hates AI except for a very small number of executives and the few tech people who are falling for the bullshit the same way so many fell for crypto.

It's like saying a survey indicates that trans people are more likely to hate American ISP's. Everyone hates them and trans people are underrepresented in the population of ISP shareholders and executives. It doesn't say anything about the trans community. It doesn't provide any actionable or useful information.

It's stating something uninteresting but applying a coat of rainbow paint to try to get clicks and engagement.

You might be living in an echo chamber. Most Americans use AI at least sometimes and plenty use it regularly according to studies.

The article contains nothing of the sort and I have no idea why you came to that conclusion.

We could argue all day over who is experiencing reality or who is in an echo chamber.

Pew Research found that US adults who are not "AI Experts" are more likely to view AI as negative and harmful.

We could argue all day over who is experiencing reality or who is in an echo chamber.

We could, or you could read the article where it addresses exactly that point. Most demographics are slightly positive on AI, with some neutral and only nonbinary people as slightly negative. The representative US sample is at 4.5/7.